My sister sent this link to me the other day. Pretty funny.
BTW...I've been posting some things here, but also some things over at my other blog.
Some things I've posted both places. But some things seem to fit better in one blog or the other, so I don't replicate every post in both places. Just thought I'd mention it for any who might want to check both out.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Monday, December 25, 2006
Exclusive Brethren - Elders an Impossibility?
I was doing some surfing on the BrethrenPedia website, when I ran across this piece of information (in the boldface print) that I had never heard before:
"As the name implies the Exclusives are so named for their practice of serving the Lord's Supper exclusively to those who are part of their own particular group, agreeing with them on various doctrinal positions.
Most exclusive groups believe the church to have been in ruins between the death of the apostles and their own time. Since no truly apostolic authority exists to appoint elders the church has none. Instead they recognize leading brothers who demonstrate maturity and leadership ability."
For a few years I've thought it would be interesting to do a study of Darby (from whom the Exclusives, moreso than the Open Brethren, trace their roots) and to consider what things might have carried over from Darby's Church of Ireland (Episcopal) background into the Plymouth Brethren. And here's one example. The doctrine of the Apostolic Succession of ministers is not exactly the type of thing most who are familiar with the Brethren would expect to find taught among them. And it seems that this would contradict their concept of there being no distinction between clergy and laity, as expressed in the same article:
"The most defining element of these churches is the total rejection of the concept of clergy. Rather, in keeping with the doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer, they view all Christians as being ordained by God to serve and are therefore ministers. Leadership is by example and by the recognition of their abilities by those they lead."
I wonder what they believe would have been necessary in order for the succession to have been continued. I was taught among the Open Brethren that while there were certainly believers through the years since the time of the apostles, the church was still in a ruinous state. But it's hard to figure out exactly what they thought would have had to be in place for the church to not have entered that state. The impression I got was that the church would have had to maintain the "Assembly Distinctions", which included things like no clergy/laity distinction, no salaried ministry, women wearing headcoverings during assembly meetings, a specific approach to worship, no women leading in worship or otherwise teaching men, local church autonomy, etc. But why would doctrinal and practical purity have been necessary to maintain the lineage? There seems to be a strong concept of Perfectionism here, which would explain why the Brethren began separating from each other almost as soon as they met and began fellowshipping together.
One other thing that the average Assembly person probably doesn't know is that Darby never rejected infant baptism, unlike most of the other founding Brethren. This has continued among the Exclusive Brethren to some extent. Here's what it says in the BrethrenPedia article on Baptism:
"Since their beginning, the Assemblies have practiced two modes of baptism: Believer's Baptism and Household Baptism. Believer's Baptism is the baptizing of believing adults, and is always performed by immersion. All Open Assemblies and some Exclusive Assemblies (in the USA) practice Believer's Baptism. Household Baptism is generally baptism by immersion; it includes infant baptism either by immersion or sprinkling. Some Exclusive Assemblies practice Household Baptism."
Interesting.
"As the name implies the Exclusives are so named for their practice of serving the Lord's Supper exclusively to those who are part of their own particular group, agreeing with them on various doctrinal positions.
Most exclusive groups believe the church to have been in ruins between the death of the apostles and their own time. Since no truly apostolic authority exists to appoint elders the church has none. Instead they recognize leading brothers who demonstrate maturity and leadership ability."
For a few years I've thought it would be interesting to do a study of Darby (from whom the Exclusives, moreso than the Open Brethren, trace their roots) and to consider what things might have carried over from Darby's Church of Ireland (Episcopal) background into the Plymouth Brethren. And here's one example. The doctrine of the Apostolic Succession of ministers is not exactly the type of thing most who are familiar with the Brethren would expect to find taught among them. And it seems that this would contradict their concept of there being no distinction between clergy and laity, as expressed in the same article:
"The most defining element of these churches is the total rejection of the concept of clergy. Rather, in keeping with the doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer, they view all Christians as being ordained by God to serve and are therefore ministers. Leadership is by example and by the recognition of their abilities by those they lead."
I wonder what they believe would have been necessary in order for the succession to have been continued. I was taught among the Open Brethren that while there were certainly believers through the years since the time of the apostles, the church was still in a ruinous state. But it's hard to figure out exactly what they thought would have had to be in place for the church to not have entered that state. The impression I got was that the church would have had to maintain the "Assembly Distinctions", which included things like no clergy/laity distinction, no salaried ministry, women wearing headcoverings during assembly meetings, a specific approach to worship, no women leading in worship or otherwise teaching men, local church autonomy, etc. But why would doctrinal and practical purity have been necessary to maintain the lineage? There seems to be a strong concept of Perfectionism here, which would explain why the Brethren began separating from each other almost as soon as they met and began fellowshipping together.
One other thing that the average Assembly person probably doesn't know is that Darby never rejected infant baptism, unlike most of the other founding Brethren. This has continued among the Exclusive Brethren to some extent. Here's what it says in the BrethrenPedia article on Baptism:
"Since their beginning, the Assemblies have practiced two modes of baptism: Believer's Baptism and Household Baptism. Believer's Baptism is the baptizing of believing adults, and is always performed by immersion. All Open Assemblies and some Exclusive Assemblies (in the USA) practice Believer's Baptism. Household Baptism is generally baptism by immersion; it includes infant baptism either by immersion or sprinkling. Some Exclusive Assemblies practice Household Baptism."
Interesting.
Christmas in the Olden Time
Christmas in the Olden Time by Sir Walter Scott
Heap on more wood! — the wind is chill;
But let it whistle as it will,
We'll keep our Christmas merry still.
Each age has deemed the new born year
The fittest time for festal cheer.
And well our Christian sires of old.
Loved when the year its course had rolled,
And brought blithe Christmas back again,
With all his hospitable train.
Domestic and religious rite
Gave honour to the holy night:
On Christmas eve the bells were rung;
On Christmas eve the mass was sung;
That only night, in all the year,
Saw the stoled priest the chalice rear.
The damsel donned her kirtle sheen;
The hail was dressed with holly green;
Forth to the wood did merry men go,
To gather in the mistletoe,
Then opened wide the baron's hail
To vassal, tenant, serf, and all;
Power laid his rod of rule aside,
And Ceremony doff'd his pride.
The heir, with roses in his shoes,
That night might village partner choose.
The lord, underogating, share
The vulgar game of "post and pair!'
All hailed with uncontroll'd delight
And general voice, the happy night
That to the cottage, as the crown,
Brought tidings of salvation down.
The fire with well dried logs supplied,
Went roaring up the chimney wide;
The huge hail table's oaken face,
Scrubb'd till it shone, the day to grace,
Bore then upon: its massive board
No mark to part the squire and lord.
Then was brought in the lusty brawn,
By old, blue-coated serving-man;
Then the grim boar's head frowned on high,
Crested with bays and rosemary.
Well can the green-garbed ranger tell,
How, when, and where, the monster fell;
What dogs before his death he tore,
And all the baiting of the boar.
The wassail round in good brown bowls,
Garnished with ribbon, blithely trowls.
There the huge sirloin reeked: hard by
Plum-porridge stood, and Christmas pie;
Nor failed old Scotland to produce
At such high tide her savoury goose.
Then came the merry masquers in,
And carols roar'd with blithesome din;
If unmelodious was the song,
It was a hearty note, and strong.
Who lists may in their mumming see
Traces of ancient mystery;
White shirts supplied the masquerade,
And smutted cheeks the visor made
But oh! what masquers, richly dight,
Can boast of bosoms half so light!
England was merry England when
Old Christmas brought his sports again.
'Twas Christmas broached the mightiest ale,
'Twas Christmas told the merriest tale;
A Christmas gambol oft would cheer
A poor man's heart through half the year.
You will find other carols, hymns, and poems here.
Heap on more wood! — the wind is chill;
But let it whistle as it will,
We'll keep our Christmas merry still.
Each age has deemed the new born year
The fittest time for festal cheer.
And well our Christian sires of old.
Loved when the year its course had rolled,
And brought blithe Christmas back again,
With all his hospitable train.
Domestic and religious rite
Gave honour to the holy night:
On Christmas eve the bells were rung;
On Christmas eve the mass was sung;
That only night, in all the year,
Saw the stoled priest the chalice rear.
The damsel donned her kirtle sheen;
The hail was dressed with holly green;
Forth to the wood did merry men go,
To gather in the mistletoe,
Then opened wide the baron's hail
To vassal, tenant, serf, and all;
Power laid his rod of rule aside,
And Ceremony doff'd his pride.
The heir, with roses in his shoes,
That night might village partner choose.
The lord, underogating, share
The vulgar game of "post and pair!'
All hailed with uncontroll'd delight
And general voice, the happy night
That to the cottage, as the crown,
Brought tidings of salvation down.
The fire with well dried logs supplied,
Went roaring up the chimney wide;
The huge hail table's oaken face,
Scrubb'd till it shone, the day to grace,
Bore then upon: its massive board
No mark to part the squire and lord.
Then was brought in the lusty brawn,
By old, blue-coated serving-man;
Then the grim boar's head frowned on high,
Crested with bays and rosemary.
Well can the green-garbed ranger tell,
How, when, and where, the monster fell;
What dogs before his death he tore,
And all the baiting of the boar.
The wassail round in good brown bowls,
Garnished with ribbon, blithely trowls.
There the huge sirloin reeked: hard by
Plum-porridge stood, and Christmas pie;
Nor failed old Scotland to produce
At such high tide her savoury goose.
Then came the merry masquers in,
And carols roar'd with blithesome din;
If unmelodious was the song,
It was a hearty note, and strong.
Who lists may in their mumming see
Traces of ancient mystery;
White shirts supplied the masquerade,
And smutted cheeks the visor made
But oh! what masquers, richly dight,
Can boast of bosoms half so light!
England was merry England when
Old Christmas brought his sports again.
'Twas Christmas broached the mightiest ale,
'Twas Christmas told the merriest tale;
A Christmas gambol oft would cheer
A poor man's heart through half the year.
You will find other carols, hymns, and poems here.
Friday, December 15, 2006
More on The Children of Men
I. The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grace, and everlasting damnation; as also, in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law. But, under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected; and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.
II. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
III. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life.
IV. And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate.
- Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 20
A friend asked me today what knew about the movie The Children of Men, since he had seen me mention it on my blog. I’ve just recently begun reading the book, so my knowledge is little at this point. I had heard an interview with Ralph Wood (who some of you might know for his work on J. R. R. Tolkien, Walker Percy, or Flannery O’Connor) with Ken Myers on Myers’ Mars Hill Audio Journal a few years ago in which they talked about P. D. James and this book in general (the journal edition was no. 54, Jan./Feb. ’02). I had heard of James prior to this, but knew nothing about her. Since hearing the interview I’ve been intrigued, but her works have remained on the back burner, and this is the first time they’ve moved up front.
Here is what I do know: the book is set in the year 2021. The prose takes the form of a journal written by one Theodore Faron, an Oxford historian. The crisis point of the book is that no children have been born anywhere throughout the world since 1995. In spite of the attempts of science to rectify the problem, it has proven impotent in all its efforts (pardon the pun). I know that by the nature of the story there is a sort of pro-life and anti-naturalist bent to the book. I just finished chapter four today, so that’s about all I know about the book itself. I know that James herself is a Christian, a member of the Church of England.
I wanted, though, to buffer what might be viewed as an unconditioned recommendation of the movie. I mentioned it here because of the interest that James’s writings have conjured in the Christian community, especially among those who tend to engage more or less frequently in the so-called “culture wars”, or, in a less militant way, for those who simply see the place of enjoying the fruits of God’s creation in culture formed by the hands of men.
But I cannot wholly endorse the film. For one thing, I haven’t seen the movie, so it could be either a bad adaptation of the book (change of storyline, or something of the like), or for one reason or another just a poor film.
But secondly, I wanted to add a caveat based on the rating of the film. It is rated R, and the website follows this up with “strong violence” and “some drug use and brief nudity”. On the basis of this, I probably won’t go see the film myself. My big concern isn’t the violence, though I don’t personally enjoy a lot of violence in films. And the drug use is of no concern. But the nudity is a concern.
It’s hard sometimes to know exactly what is okay and what isn’t okay to view in the media. I think the average Christian knows that to view anything that might be labeled as pornography is a grave sin. The problem is in knowing what should and shouldn’t be labeled as pornography. “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous” (Hebrews 13:4). There have been those from within the Christian community throughout the history of the West that have argued in favor of nudity in art as legitimate, and I can’t fully argue against it. Nor would I seek to bind the conscience of any, hence the inclusion of Chapter 20 of the Westminster Confession of Faith above. And if one goes strictly by what is mentioned in connection with the rating, we may assume that what takes place in the film is just nudity, entirely apart from any hint of actual sexual conduct. I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption, but it’s the best one can do given the information provided.
I guess when it comes down to it, the question I have to ask myself is this: would I want my daughter, my sister, my wife, or my mother to be the one up on the screen and unclothed? The answer is an unequivocal “no!” It may actually be male nudity in the film. But since female nudity is far more common in movies today, I think it’s safe to expect that to be the case here.
One of the things that has gradually eroded in our society today is any concept of the reality of a woman’s honor. Women are meant to be honored, and where that has been erased from the consensus understanding of a community it is first and foremost the fault of the men of that community. This is not to say that women aren’t sinners too, or that they can’t do anything to cause or contribute to their dishonor. But where there is a failure in a community, it is a failure on the part of men to lead, and in this case, a failure on the part of men to hold up women as something to be treasured.
I think also of the general absence of shame in our society. Think, for instance: when was the last time you saw some one blush? Shame in a sinful world is a beautiful thing. It says that a person has a sense of purity of life and of mind. It is a sign of one’s consciousness of his or her own limitedness - a sense of humility. It is dismissed by the cynical and proud of the world, who deep down inside know they have lost their purity and who think there is no hope of recovering any of it. But God says otherwise.
The issue here isn’t really even my own purity as the one who will or will not see the film. The issue here is as it always is. I am to love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love my neighbor as myself. I am to give myself away in sacrifice where it is called for, as my Saviour did. I don’t think I can do that and go see this film, as much as I might like to. I leave it to you to decide whether or not you can.
II. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
III. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life.
IV. And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate.
- Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 20
A friend asked me today what knew about the movie The Children of Men, since he had seen me mention it on my blog. I’ve just recently begun reading the book, so my knowledge is little at this point. I had heard an interview with Ralph Wood (who some of you might know for his work on J. R. R. Tolkien, Walker Percy, or Flannery O’Connor) with Ken Myers on Myers’ Mars Hill Audio Journal a few years ago in which they talked about P. D. James and this book in general (the journal edition was no. 54, Jan./Feb. ’02). I had heard of James prior to this, but knew nothing about her. Since hearing the interview I’ve been intrigued, but her works have remained on the back burner, and this is the first time they’ve moved up front.
Here is what I do know: the book is set in the year 2021. The prose takes the form of a journal written by one Theodore Faron, an Oxford historian. The crisis point of the book is that no children have been born anywhere throughout the world since 1995. In spite of the attempts of science to rectify the problem, it has proven impotent in all its efforts (pardon the pun). I know that by the nature of the story there is a sort of pro-life and anti-naturalist bent to the book. I just finished chapter four today, so that’s about all I know about the book itself. I know that James herself is a Christian, a member of the Church of England.
I wanted, though, to buffer what might be viewed as an unconditioned recommendation of the movie. I mentioned it here because of the interest that James’s writings have conjured in the Christian community, especially among those who tend to engage more or less frequently in the so-called “culture wars”, or, in a less militant way, for those who simply see the place of enjoying the fruits of God’s creation in culture formed by the hands of men.
But I cannot wholly endorse the film. For one thing, I haven’t seen the movie, so it could be either a bad adaptation of the book (change of storyline, or something of the like), or for one reason or another just a poor film.
But secondly, I wanted to add a caveat based on the rating of the film. It is rated R, and the website follows this up with “strong violence” and “some drug use and brief nudity”. On the basis of this, I probably won’t go see the film myself. My big concern isn’t the violence, though I don’t personally enjoy a lot of violence in films. And the drug use is of no concern. But the nudity is a concern.
It’s hard sometimes to know exactly what is okay and what isn’t okay to view in the media. I think the average Christian knows that to view anything that might be labeled as pornography is a grave sin. The problem is in knowing what should and shouldn’t be labeled as pornography. “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous” (Hebrews 13:4). There have been those from within the Christian community throughout the history of the West that have argued in favor of nudity in art as legitimate, and I can’t fully argue against it. Nor would I seek to bind the conscience of any, hence the inclusion of Chapter 20 of the Westminster Confession of Faith above. And if one goes strictly by what is mentioned in connection with the rating, we may assume that what takes place in the film is just nudity, entirely apart from any hint of actual sexual conduct. I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption, but it’s the best one can do given the information provided.
I guess when it comes down to it, the question I have to ask myself is this: would I want my daughter, my sister, my wife, or my mother to be the one up on the screen and unclothed? The answer is an unequivocal “no!” It may actually be male nudity in the film. But since female nudity is far more common in movies today, I think it’s safe to expect that to be the case here.
One of the things that has gradually eroded in our society today is any concept of the reality of a woman’s honor. Women are meant to be honored, and where that has been erased from the consensus understanding of a community it is first and foremost the fault of the men of that community. This is not to say that women aren’t sinners too, or that they can’t do anything to cause or contribute to their dishonor. But where there is a failure in a community, it is a failure on the part of men to lead, and in this case, a failure on the part of men to hold up women as something to be treasured.
I think also of the general absence of shame in our society. Think, for instance: when was the last time you saw some one blush? Shame in a sinful world is a beautiful thing. It says that a person has a sense of purity of life and of mind. It is a sign of one’s consciousness of his or her own limitedness - a sense of humility. It is dismissed by the cynical and proud of the world, who deep down inside know they have lost their purity and who think there is no hope of recovering any of it. But God says otherwise.
The issue here isn’t really even my own purity as the one who will or will not see the film. The issue here is as it always is. I am to love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love my neighbor as myself. I am to give myself away in sacrifice where it is called for, as my Saviour did. I don’t think I can do that and go see this film, as much as I might like to. I leave it to you to decide whether or not you can.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
The Children of Men
I just discovered that P. D. James's book The Children of Men has been made into a film, which is being released on Christmas Day. You can see the official movie website here.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Obligatory Blogging
Say that three times real fast.
Yes, I continue to be the slackest of bloggers. Ten lashes with a wet noodle for me. I’m sure I’ll get more inspired some time soon. Blogging has just had to take a back seat to other events in my life here recently.
Concerning recent events…I was confirmed in the Anglican Province of America about six weeks ago. I had never seen a confirmation ceremony before, so I fumbled and bumbled my way through it, kneeling, standing, and reciting when I was directed to. I’m pretty certain the thing took in spite of my foibles. Therefore I am now officially and fully a part of the Church, by Anglican standards. And so to all my non-Catholic friends: I’m in Apostolic Succession, and you aren’t. Na-na-na-na-na-na.
My dear Plymouth Brethren mother attended the service at my request, though her attendance was more than a little reluctant. When a parishioner asked her what she thought of the service, she just smiled and nodded her head. Bless her heart, as we say here in the south. I trust one day she will understand her son’s strange ecclesial journey, though that understanding may not come this side of glory.
And yet in my personal beliefs, I remain mostly a Presbyterian.
I have no idea who is reading my blog (though I can tell someone is by the hit counter), so I don’t know how this bit of information will strike the reader. Some of you may be more traditionally Western Catholic in your beliefs, in which case you’re saying to yourself something like “All the oil and holy water in the world won’t help this guy.” And some of you may be more Reformational or Evangelical in your beliefs, in which case you have written me off as a crypto-papist at worst or as just confused at best.
But most of you probably could care less, which may be the best position to be in.
The fact that I am a Presbyterian is one that I made sure of discussing with my priest before joining the church. I am something of a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none when it comes to theology. That includes the endless variety of denominational distinctives. I wanted to make sure that I could transfer my membership to another denomination (specifically, Presbyterian) sometime later after being confirmed. I know some Anglican communions wouldn’t allow that. I was assured that in the APA I could do that. Plus, I am not one to enter into a church situation under false pretenses. I wanted my pastor to know clearly where I was coming from. While the APA is generally more Anglo-Catholic in its practice, I am a Protestant down to my toenails. I am appreciative of the immense good that has come out of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But I have numerous fundamental disagreements with both groups. Nor do I have any intention of changing. I go wherever the truth leads me, and so if I were to become convinced of Anglo-Catholicism, then my views would change. But I believe I’ve looked at the issues sufficiently to know that such a change won’t be happening. The APA seems broad enough to hold Protestants and Catholics, though I’m sure if disagreements haven’t already taken place, eventually they will. Protestants and Catholics can only tolerate each other in the same communion for so long. Then again, I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. That question to the side, as long as the APA keeps using the 1928 Prayer Book of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and allows for diversity in private devotion without forcing the more Catholic practices into public devotion, I can be content where I am.
Our culture today has taught us to view the church the way it has taught us to view everything else (everything, that is, not claimed by the State). We begin with the grid of free will and filter everything through that grid. One shape the free will grid takes is the shape of consumerism. We go out shopping for religion and choose whatever strikes our fancy. There have been other factors in the history of America that have bourne upon our ideas of church. What we have ended up with is what R. J. Rushdoony called “The Voluntaristic Church”. We can buy whatever religion we want, or we can vote it into being, or we can just make it up as it suits us. We determine our own destiny. There is no transcendent standard. Most people aren’t so brazen as this, though this mentality directs their decisions to some degree anyway.
I’ve tried to take a more Biblically intelligent approach to finding a church than that. I don’t think I can go just wherever suits me. I have to examine Scripture, determine what is the most Biblically shaped church available to me, and join that church. It isn’t always easy to make that choice, or even to determine what is most important in a church. But one has to follow Scripture as best he can.
If I’m mostly a Presbyterian (you may be wondering), why did I join an Anglican church? I can’t fully answer the question now. But here are a couple of brief reasons.
Since leaving the Plymouth Brethren about seven years ago, I’ve spent a lot of time surveying the church landscape, both in my community and in the broader world. I’ve spent a lot of time as well studying the Scriptures, and reading books by various Christian theologians of various persuasions on all sorts of topics. And while I don’t have everything figured out, I’m in a pretty settled position regarding what I believe the Scriptures to teach on just about every major topic.
One topic I’m pretty settled on is worship. Not on every aspect of worship, mind you. I have plenty more to learn when it comes to the details. But I’m convinced of certain things nonetheless. For one thing, I’m convinced that worship should be reverent. There should be no running around chit-chatting in the worship room right before the service. That kind of behaviour immediately betrays what people think they are there for and what they think of God. The music should communicate the greatness of God’s character and of His salvation of us. With so many churches abandoning traditional hymnody for modern sappy effeminate pop songs, any sort of notion of these things is being lost. And those leading worship should behave in a way that demonstrates for the people that they are entering into God’s presence when they gather for corporate worship. The pastor needs to save his jokes for some other time. The sad thing is that what I’ve just described characterizes most of the Presbyterian churches I’ve attended. So that eliminated about ninety percent of the Presbyterian churches in my area.
I also believe worship should be more liturgical in nature. This is just building off of my previous point. And once again, I’m still working out the details of this one. But here’s one thing to consider. In the Old Covenant, God gave the people of Israel a very detailed pattern of worship. This pattern was very structured in its order and execution. If once in history God Himself saw fit to give us a pattern, shouldn’t we consider that pattern and its context as we shape New Covenant worship? Now we know that the exact shape of Old Covenant worship was done away with in the ending of the Old Covenant. The Book of Hebrews makes that quite clear. But the Israelites were people, and so are we. And they didn’t just invent their own worship – God gave it to them. Those two elements alone make me believe that we should consider the orderliness of worship as a vital element.
But there is more to liturgy than just being orderly, just like there is more to being liturgical than just having alot of different elements to your worship service. Many Presbyterian churches have order, as well as some of the classic elements of a liturgical service, such as the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. But a classical liturgical service conveys the idea that we are there to corporately engage in dialogue with God. If a pastor ad libs between every element of worship, even if it is Scripture-related ad libbing, he gives off the impression that the congregation is in fact dialoguing with him, not God. That is what I have often seen in Presbyterian churches that would say they have a “liturgy”. And so I say to any Presbyterian ministers that may read this: if you really want to communicate the greatness of God to your parishioners as you say you do, then you will follow a set liturgy and get out of the way. If, however, you want it to be your show, then talk as much as possible – during the elements of worship as well as in between them. Have at least two preaching services on Sunday, and maybe a mid-week service. Meet your parishioners for meals, and instruct them then, too. Visit them in their homes, and use the opportunity for more instruction. And don’t let them talk much, because God ordained you to talk, not them. They don’t have anything important to say anyway. And don’t worry about burning your people out. If they can’t handle all the instruction, then they probably aren’t truly converted anyway.
Those last few sentences were sarcastic, as I trust you can tell. I wish I could say that they are fictitious, but they are based on my own personal experiences with Reformed ministers (except for the last sentence – for the most part, anyway). Then again, I’ve blogged about this before, so the reader already knew about my frustration with this sort of thing. Nonetheless, this is another example of the problems that have kept me out of the other Presbyterian churches in my community.
Liturgy is the main reason I’m in the Anglican church rather than in a Presbyterian church. If I’m so Protestant, you might wonder, why didn’t I just join an Evangelical congregation? I tried going it in non-liturgical Evangelical churches before this. But I just couldn’t stand the casualness of the congregation’s behaviour in worship. I couldn’t stand the contemporary music. I longed for weekly communion. I missed the full-orbed observance of the Church Calendar. And I wanted to be with people who were conscious that they were part of a community two thousand years old (or, truly, older), and who weren’t afraid to draw off of the wisdom of that ancient community. I hope one day to find myself a member of a Reformed congregation that has all of these things. But for now, until the Lord directs me otherwise, I am where I am.
Yes, I continue to be the slackest of bloggers. Ten lashes with a wet noodle for me. I’m sure I’ll get more inspired some time soon. Blogging has just had to take a back seat to other events in my life here recently.
Concerning recent events…I was confirmed in the Anglican Province of America about six weeks ago. I had never seen a confirmation ceremony before, so I fumbled and bumbled my way through it, kneeling, standing, and reciting when I was directed to. I’m pretty certain the thing took in spite of my foibles. Therefore I am now officially and fully a part of the Church, by Anglican standards. And so to all my non-Catholic friends: I’m in Apostolic Succession, and you aren’t. Na-na-na-na-na-na.
My dear Plymouth Brethren mother attended the service at my request, though her attendance was more than a little reluctant. When a parishioner asked her what she thought of the service, she just smiled and nodded her head. Bless her heart, as we say here in the south. I trust one day she will understand her son’s strange ecclesial journey, though that understanding may not come this side of glory.
And yet in my personal beliefs, I remain mostly a Presbyterian.
I have no idea who is reading my blog (though I can tell someone is by the hit counter), so I don’t know how this bit of information will strike the reader. Some of you may be more traditionally Western Catholic in your beliefs, in which case you’re saying to yourself something like “All the oil and holy water in the world won’t help this guy.” And some of you may be more Reformational or Evangelical in your beliefs, in which case you have written me off as a crypto-papist at worst or as just confused at best.
But most of you probably could care less, which may be the best position to be in.
The fact that I am a Presbyterian is one that I made sure of discussing with my priest before joining the church. I am something of a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none when it comes to theology. That includes the endless variety of denominational distinctives. I wanted to make sure that I could transfer my membership to another denomination (specifically, Presbyterian) sometime later after being confirmed. I know some Anglican communions wouldn’t allow that. I was assured that in the APA I could do that. Plus, I am not one to enter into a church situation under false pretenses. I wanted my pastor to know clearly where I was coming from. While the APA is generally more Anglo-Catholic in its practice, I am a Protestant down to my toenails. I am appreciative of the immense good that has come out of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But I have numerous fundamental disagreements with both groups. Nor do I have any intention of changing. I go wherever the truth leads me, and so if I were to become convinced of Anglo-Catholicism, then my views would change. But I believe I’ve looked at the issues sufficiently to know that such a change won’t be happening. The APA seems broad enough to hold Protestants and Catholics, though I’m sure if disagreements haven’t already taken place, eventually they will. Protestants and Catholics can only tolerate each other in the same communion for so long. Then again, I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. That question to the side, as long as the APA keeps using the 1928 Prayer Book of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and allows for diversity in private devotion without forcing the more Catholic practices into public devotion, I can be content where I am.
Our culture today has taught us to view the church the way it has taught us to view everything else (everything, that is, not claimed by the State). We begin with the grid of free will and filter everything through that grid. One shape the free will grid takes is the shape of consumerism. We go out shopping for religion and choose whatever strikes our fancy. There have been other factors in the history of America that have bourne upon our ideas of church. What we have ended up with is what R. J. Rushdoony called “The Voluntaristic Church”. We can buy whatever religion we want, or we can vote it into being, or we can just make it up as it suits us. We determine our own destiny. There is no transcendent standard. Most people aren’t so brazen as this, though this mentality directs their decisions to some degree anyway.
I’ve tried to take a more Biblically intelligent approach to finding a church than that. I don’t think I can go just wherever suits me. I have to examine Scripture, determine what is the most Biblically shaped church available to me, and join that church. It isn’t always easy to make that choice, or even to determine what is most important in a church. But one has to follow Scripture as best he can.
If I’m mostly a Presbyterian (you may be wondering), why did I join an Anglican church? I can’t fully answer the question now. But here are a couple of brief reasons.
Since leaving the Plymouth Brethren about seven years ago, I’ve spent a lot of time surveying the church landscape, both in my community and in the broader world. I’ve spent a lot of time as well studying the Scriptures, and reading books by various Christian theologians of various persuasions on all sorts of topics. And while I don’t have everything figured out, I’m in a pretty settled position regarding what I believe the Scriptures to teach on just about every major topic.
One topic I’m pretty settled on is worship. Not on every aspect of worship, mind you. I have plenty more to learn when it comes to the details. But I’m convinced of certain things nonetheless. For one thing, I’m convinced that worship should be reverent. There should be no running around chit-chatting in the worship room right before the service. That kind of behaviour immediately betrays what people think they are there for and what they think of God. The music should communicate the greatness of God’s character and of His salvation of us. With so many churches abandoning traditional hymnody for modern sappy effeminate pop songs, any sort of notion of these things is being lost. And those leading worship should behave in a way that demonstrates for the people that they are entering into God’s presence when they gather for corporate worship. The pastor needs to save his jokes for some other time. The sad thing is that what I’ve just described characterizes most of the Presbyterian churches I’ve attended. So that eliminated about ninety percent of the Presbyterian churches in my area.
I also believe worship should be more liturgical in nature. This is just building off of my previous point. And once again, I’m still working out the details of this one. But here’s one thing to consider. In the Old Covenant, God gave the people of Israel a very detailed pattern of worship. This pattern was very structured in its order and execution. If once in history God Himself saw fit to give us a pattern, shouldn’t we consider that pattern and its context as we shape New Covenant worship? Now we know that the exact shape of Old Covenant worship was done away with in the ending of the Old Covenant. The Book of Hebrews makes that quite clear. But the Israelites were people, and so are we. And they didn’t just invent their own worship – God gave it to them. Those two elements alone make me believe that we should consider the orderliness of worship as a vital element.
But there is more to liturgy than just being orderly, just like there is more to being liturgical than just having alot of different elements to your worship service. Many Presbyterian churches have order, as well as some of the classic elements of a liturgical service, such as the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. But a classical liturgical service conveys the idea that we are there to corporately engage in dialogue with God. If a pastor ad libs between every element of worship, even if it is Scripture-related ad libbing, he gives off the impression that the congregation is in fact dialoguing with him, not God. That is what I have often seen in Presbyterian churches that would say they have a “liturgy”. And so I say to any Presbyterian ministers that may read this: if you really want to communicate the greatness of God to your parishioners as you say you do, then you will follow a set liturgy and get out of the way. If, however, you want it to be your show, then talk as much as possible – during the elements of worship as well as in between them. Have at least two preaching services on Sunday, and maybe a mid-week service. Meet your parishioners for meals, and instruct them then, too. Visit them in their homes, and use the opportunity for more instruction. And don’t let them talk much, because God ordained you to talk, not them. They don’t have anything important to say anyway. And don’t worry about burning your people out. If they can’t handle all the instruction, then they probably aren’t truly converted anyway.
Those last few sentences were sarcastic, as I trust you can tell. I wish I could say that they are fictitious, but they are based on my own personal experiences with Reformed ministers (except for the last sentence – for the most part, anyway). Then again, I’ve blogged about this before, so the reader already knew about my frustration with this sort of thing. Nonetheless, this is another example of the problems that have kept me out of the other Presbyterian churches in my community.
Liturgy is the main reason I’m in the Anglican church rather than in a Presbyterian church. If I’m so Protestant, you might wonder, why didn’t I just join an Evangelical congregation? I tried going it in non-liturgical Evangelical churches before this. But I just couldn’t stand the casualness of the congregation’s behaviour in worship. I couldn’t stand the contemporary music. I longed for weekly communion. I missed the full-orbed observance of the Church Calendar. And I wanted to be with people who were conscious that they were part of a community two thousand years old (or, truly, older), and who weren’t afraid to draw off of the wisdom of that ancient community. I hope one day to find myself a member of a Reformed congregation that has all of these things. But for now, until the Lord directs me otherwise, I am where I am.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Adblock
I recently created a page on MySpace.com (my profile page is here, for those who are interested). Since I was registered as a single male, I soon found myself assaulted with ads for a certain dating service featuring many scantily-clad young ladies. I don't know what shows up for those of you who are registered as married or as single women, but I would suspect you're faced with ads you'd rather not see as well.
If your browser is Mozilla Firefox, then there is a way for you to get rid of the ads. Go here and download Adblock Plus. It blocks most of the ads, and in turn speeds up the download time.
If your browser is Mozilla Firefox, then there is a way for you to get rid of the ads. Go here and download Adblock Plus. It blocks most of the ads, and in turn speeds up the download time.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Ah, Holy Jesus
Listen to it here.
Ah, holy Jesus, how hast Thou offended,
That man to judge Thee hath in hate pretended?
By foes derided, by Thine own rejected,
O most afflicted.
Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon Thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone Thee.
’Twas I, Lord, Jesus, I it was denied Thee!
I crucified Thee.
Lo, the Good Shepherd for the sheep is offered;
The slave hath sinned, and the Son hath suffered;
For man’s atonement, while he nothing heedeth,
God intercedeth.
For me, kind Jesus, was Thy incarnation,
Thy mortal sorrow, and Thy life’s oblation;
Thy death of anguish and Thy bitter passion,
For my salvation.
Therefore, kind Jesus, since I cannot pay Thee,
I do adore Thee, and will ever pray Thee,
Think on Thy pity and Thy love unswerving,
Not my deserving.
Ah, holy Jesus, how hast Thou offended,
That man to judge Thee hath in hate pretended?
By foes derided, by Thine own rejected,
O most afflicted.
Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon Thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone Thee.
’Twas I, Lord, Jesus, I it was denied Thee!
I crucified Thee.
Lo, the Good Shepherd for the sheep is offered;
The slave hath sinned, and the Son hath suffered;
For man’s atonement, while he nothing heedeth,
God intercedeth.
For me, kind Jesus, was Thy incarnation,
Thy mortal sorrow, and Thy life’s oblation;
Thy death of anguish and Thy bitter passion,
For my salvation.
Therefore, kind Jesus, since I cannot pay Thee,
I do adore Thee, and will ever pray Thee,
Think on Thy pity and Thy love unswerving,
Not my deserving.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Holy Days, Batman!
A happy All Saints’ season to you all. Or to be more technical, a happy fifth day in the octave of All Saints’. I hope it is proving to be a good season for you.
At St. John’s Anglican Church in Greensboro where I attend we celebrated All Saints’ Day through a Holy Communion service. The Rt. Rev. C. Peter Brewer, who has been our parish priest since May (and who is also Suffragan Bishop in our denomination, the Anglican Province of America), has done a great service to us in providing extra opportunities for corporate worship. In addition to Communion services on feast days other than the standard Sunday service, Fr. Brewer has been holding a weekly Communion service on Thursdays at noon. He has also been having Evening Prayer services on Wednesday nights, after which he has been holding an introductory course on Anglicanism. As one who believes strongly in the importance of the local church as central to the life of the community, I am glad to see these sorts of things going on and have enjoyed participating in them. I have often wished and prayed that there would be more frequent worship services in our area that I could participate in, particularly of a classical liturgical nature. And in the past, my options have generally been Fundamentalist churches, Liberal mainline churches, Seeker worship services, or the Roman Catholic mass. Other than the last option, I have at times attended some of these, finding myself leaving those services less than satisfied. So, having been limited to these others in the past, I have found the extra services at St. John’s to be a blessing.
We just passed Reformation Day, which was Tuesday. In honor of the day, I flipped through a biography of Luther that I picked up not so long ago that I haven’t read. It is called Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death, and was written by Richard Marius. I looked in particular at the section about Luther’s posting of the Ninety-Five Theses (which you can read here). I rather quickly ran across a piece of information that was new to me. Apparently some scholars in recent years have questioned whether or not Luther actually ever posted the Theses on the Wittenberg church door. It seems that Luther himself never made any reference to the event in his writings. Our record of the posting comes from Philipp Melanchthon’s brief account of Luther’s life, which was written some thirty years after the alleged event. But Melanchthon himself was not in Wittenberg at the time, not arriving until August 1518, whereas the posting of the Theses supposedly took place on October 31, 1517, some ten months before. Marius himself doesn’t appear to believe that Luther actually posted the Theses, but instead attempts a reconstruction of what might have actually happened in the development of the theses. The reconstruction is fairly detailed, so I won’t attempt to repeat it here. If you’re interested, you might want to try and get a hold of the book. I haven’t read the rest of the book, though, so for all I know it might be garbage. I thought I would mention it here anyway, since I imagine some readers would be interested in the simple fact that the debate exists. I don’t find the proposal convincing myself.
In more news related to All Saints’ Day, for my birthday my friend Chad recently gave me For All the Saints?: Remembering the Christian Departed by N. T. Wright. I just finished it yesterday. It is an outstanding book. If you have no familiarity with or interest in matters related to the Church Calendar, much of the book will be foreign territory to you. At the same time, Wright also deals with issues related to Purgatory and the cult of the saints, which should interest most Reformed folks and Evangelicals. And an especially interesting aspect of the book is that Wright really shows his Reformed and Evangelical leanings here, taking after the Catholic doctrines of Purgatory and Sainthood. I can’t say I agree with every jot and tittle of the book. At times in Wright’s writings and lectures one can sniff out a hint of religious liberalism that Wright doesn’t appear to realize he has. And if this were (American) football, and I were a referee, I would penalize Wright a combined total of thirty yards for a favorable citing of Process theologian John Polkinghorne and for an unnecessary use of the vomit-inducing phrase “househusband”. These things to the side, the book is shot through with the brilliant sort of insights one typically hears from Wright. It’s definitely worth the read. It’s also an easy read, and a short seventy-six pages. Mark Horne has commented about the book some on his blog, but I haven’t read the comments yet.
With Halloween safely out of the way, I was greeted on Nov. 1 by a flyer in my mailbox from Lifeway Christian Stores. The flyer was decked out from cover to cover with Christmas images and products. For those who don’t know, Lifeway is the former Baptist Bookstore, still run (so far as I know) by the Southern Baptist Convention Sunday School Board. There wasn’t a hint in the flyer that there might be a holiday called Thanksgiving wedged somewhere between Halloween and Christmas. Apparently, the Baptists are more interested in the more traditionally Catholic holiday of Christmas(s) than they are the more Protestant holiday of Thanksgiving. But let’s be honest. Far more money can be and is made off of Christmas. I’ll leave the implications of this for you to figure out yourself.
Opening to the second page of the flyer, I read the following:
Wow. I’m figuring that this must have been written by one of three different types of people: 1) a universalist; 2) a consistent Presbyterian; or 3) a Baptist who really doesn’t understand the implications of his theology. I suspect it’s actually the last type of person. If that’s the case, then may all Baptists be as inconsistent in their theology as this. One way or another, someone was obviously asleep at the wheel in the ad department at Lifeway when this one came through.
And Christmas approaches rapidly. Most people technically celebrate it as one day, rushing through Advent (which most have never heard of) like a flash of light. We’ve allowed the consumer culture to push its version of Christmas on us, in some cases, beginning as early as August. Some of this is easier to take. Some people like to shop early, so it’s a bit understandable when the stores have their Christmas products on display a couple of months early.
But some of it makes no sense. I was riding in the car yesterday and flipping through the commercial radio stations when I ran across a version of “Do You Hear What I Hear?” being performed, I think, by Martina McBride. I wasn’t familiar with the radio station, so I just figured it was a country station and that the DJ had a little mix-up. But then the announcer came on, stated that it was “your station for the holidays” or some such thing, and proceeded to play some Christmas song by Andy Williams.
I couldn’t believe my ears. So this radio station will be playing Christmas music (or rather, the ambiguous “holiday music”, overlooking the root words “holy day” and their accompanying meanings) for the next two months. In case anyone has forgotten, we only have twelve months in a year. That makes one-sixth of a year, for those of you who are mathematically challenged, that “holiday music” will be played on this station. Is this how you spell the word “insanity”?
I had some computer problems recently (and have been very busy in general anyway), hence the lack of postings. Among other things, I’ll be getting back to those music postings soon – I hope. Thanks to those of you who keep checking back.
At St. John’s Anglican Church in Greensboro where I attend we celebrated All Saints’ Day through a Holy Communion service. The Rt. Rev. C. Peter Brewer, who has been our parish priest since May (and who is also Suffragan Bishop in our denomination, the Anglican Province of America), has done a great service to us in providing extra opportunities for corporate worship. In addition to Communion services on feast days other than the standard Sunday service, Fr. Brewer has been holding a weekly Communion service on Thursdays at noon. He has also been having Evening Prayer services on Wednesday nights, after which he has been holding an introductory course on Anglicanism. As one who believes strongly in the importance of the local church as central to the life of the community, I am glad to see these sorts of things going on and have enjoyed participating in them. I have often wished and prayed that there would be more frequent worship services in our area that I could participate in, particularly of a classical liturgical nature. And in the past, my options have generally been Fundamentalist churches, Liberal mainline churches, Seeker worship services, or the Roman Catholic mass. Other than the last option, I have at times attended some of these, finding myself leaving those services less than satisfied. So, having been limited to these others in the past, I have found the extra services at St. John’s to be a blessing.
We just passed Reformation Day, which was Tuesday. In honor of the day, I flipped through a biography of Luther that I picked up not so long ago that I haven’t read. It is called Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death, and was written by Richard Marius. I looked in particular at the section about Luther’s posting of the Ninety-Five Theses (which you can read here). I rather quickly ran across a piece of information that was new to me. Apparently some scholars in recent years have questioned whether or not Luther actually ever posted the Theses on the Wittenberg church door. It seems that Luther himself never made any reference to the event in his writings. Our record of the posting comes from Philipp Melanchthon’s brief account of Luther’s life, which was written some thirty years after the alleged event. But Melanchthon himself was not in Wittenberg at the time, not arriving until August 1518, whereas the posting of the Theses supposedly took place on October 31, 1517, some ten months before. Marius himself doesn’t appear to believe that Luther actually posted the Theses, but instead attempts a reconstruction of what might have actually happened in the development of the theses. The reconstruction is fairly detailed, so I won’t attempt to repeat it here. If you’re interested, you might want to try and get a hold of the book. I haven’t read the rest of the book, though, so for all I know it might be garbage. I thought I would mention it here anyway, since I imagine some readers would be interested in the simple fact that the debate exists. I don’t find the proposal convincing myself.
In more news related to All Saints’ Day, for my birthday my friend Chad recently gave me For All the Saints?: Remembering the Christian Departed by N. T. Wright. I just finished it yesterday. It is an outstanding book. If you have no familiarity with or interest in matters related to the Church Calendar, much of the book will be foreign territory to you. At the same time, Wright also deals with issues related to Purgatory and the cult of the saints, which should interest most Reformed folks and Evangelicals. And an especially interesting aspect of the book is that Wright really shows his Reformed and Evangelical leanings here, taking after the Catholic doctrines of Purgatory and Sainthood. I can’t say I agree with every jot and tittle of the book. At times in Wright’s writings and lectures one can sniff out a hint of religious liberalism that Wright doesn’t appear to realize he has. And if this were (American) football, and I were a referee, I would penalize Wright a combined total of thirty yards for a favorable citing of Process theologian John Polkinghorne and for an unnecessary use of the vomit-inducing phrase “househusband”. These things to the side, the book is shot through with the brilliant sort of insights one typically hears from Wright. It’s definitely worth the read. It’s also an easy read, and a short seventy-six pages. Mark Horne has commented about the book some on his blog, but I haven’t read the comments yet.
With Halloween safely out of the way, I was greeted on Nov. 1 by a flyer in my mailbox from Lifeway Christian Stores. The flyer was decked out from cover to cover with Christmas images and products. For those who don’t know, Lifeway is the former Baptist Bookstore, still run (so far as I know) by the Southern Baptist Convention Sunday School Board. There wasn’t a hint in the flyer that there might be a holiday called Thanksgiving wedged somewhere between Halloween and Christmas. Apparently, the Baptists are more interested in the more traditionally Catholic holiday of Christmas(s) than they are the more Protestant holiday of Thanksgiving. But let’s be honest. Far more money can be and is made off of Christmas. I’ll leave the implications of this for you to figure out yourself.
Opening to the second page of the flyer, I read the following:
Jesus Loves The Little Children – It’s never too early to begin teaching your child that Jesus loves them. Even if they can’t read the words, they’ll one day realized you were already teaching them about Jesus from their very first steps.
Wow. I’m figuring that this must have been written by one of three different types of people: 1) a universalist; 2) a consistent Presbyterian; or 3) a Baptist who really doesn’t understand the implications of his theology. I suspect it’s actually the last type of person. If that’s the case, then may all Baptists be as inconsistent in their theology as this. One way or another, someone was obviously asleep at the wheel in the ad department at Lifeway when this one came through.
And Christmas approaches rapidly. Most people technically celebrate it as one day, rushing through Advent (which most have never heard of) like a flash of light. We’ve allowed the consumer culture to push its version of Christmas on us, in some cases, beginning as early as August. Some of this is easier to take. Some people like to shop early, so it’s a bit understandable when the stores have their Christmas products on display a couple of months early.
But some of it makes no sense. I was riding in the car yesterday and flipping through the commercial radio stations when I ran across a version of “Do You Hear What I Hear?” being performed, I think, by Martina McBride. I wasn’t familiar with the radio station, so I just figured it was a country station and that the DJ had a little mix-up. But then the announcer came on, stated that it was “your station for the holidays” or some such thing, and proceeded to play some Christmas song by Andy Williams.
I couldn’t believe my ears. So this radio station will be playing Christmas music (or rather, the ambiguous “holiday music”, overlooking the root words “holy day” and their accompanying meanings) for the next two months. In case anyone has forgotten, we only have twelve months in a year. That makes one-sixth of a year, for those of you who are mathematically challenged, that “holiday music” will be played on this station. Is this how you spell the word “insanity”?
I had some computer problems recently (and have been very busy in general anyway), hence the lack of postings. Among other things, I’ll be getting back to those music postings soon – I hope. Thanks to those of you who keep checking back.
Cheers
At the grocery store last night, I rediscovered another benefit of excessively early Christmas marketing.
Egg nog.
Egg nog.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Friday, October 20, 2006
Thoughts on Halloween
Halloween is less than two weeks away, and most Christian families have already taken a position on whether or not to celebrate it. I’m not a family man, so I haven’t had to make the decision for anyone other than myself. I do have some thoughts on it, though.
Most Americans treat Halloween as they do other holidays – as a day to celebrate for no particular reason, according to traditional practices that people don’t know the origin or purpose of. If I had no other wish, I would that people actually recognized the significance of the days they observe, and questioned in an informed and intelligent fashion why they do what they do.
Halloween has historically been recognized a couple of different ways. The older form is as All Hallows’ Eve, or All Saints’ Eve. The other is, as it is in Reformation circles, as Reformation Day, because it is the anniversary of the day that Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.
I consider both observances as legitimate and compatible, though I know my Catholic brethren would disagree. And while I don’t think anything is wrong with the custom of putting on costumes and knocking on doors, of yelling “trick or treat” and getting candy, I wish that the average Christian home would seek a return to a recognition of this day as it historically has been, as a “holy day” – a day of celebration for God’s work in the lives of his saints. While I believe God can truly be honored through mindless fun, I think that an observance of the Church Calendar is irreplaceable as providing order, stability, purpose, and meaning in a Christian’s life as well as in the Christian family and community. I also believe that the Church Calendar is one of the greatest testimonies of Christ’s Kingdom, in showing that the kingdoms of this world are truly His. In observing the church calendar, we stand against the forces of paganism and secularism that seek to encroach upon more and more of our lives every day, and instead testify that we are Christ’s, that we belong to no other, and that every knee will one day bow to Him.
I would also like to add some thoughts on the “Holyween” or “Hallelujah” festivals that Evangelicals have the past few years taken to holding in an effort to provide an alternative to Halloween. I know some of these things have sprung up due to the fact that in many or most communities it is unsafe to take your children (or, in some cases of parental neglect, allowing them to go without a chaperone) to the doors of your neighbors for “trick or treat”. Part of the problem here lies in the fact that most of us don’t know our neighbors anymore. We choose rather to isolate ourselves in our houses whenever we are at home, which is growing more rare as the years go by. Increasingly, we are using our houses for little more than sleeping at night. (This is a subject worthy of its own blog entry, so I'll save further comment for another time.)
Another part of the problem lies in the fact that our country is growing more and more wicked. Insofar as the churches are simply seeking to protect children, I applaud them.
But there is a problem here in the approach. The Evangelical church has been largely secularized for years, giving up the culture to non-Christians to run. And those non-Christians have done their best to take our Holy Days and turn them into non-descript days of celebration for all to observe and exploit. Now the Evangelical church has realized (late, as usual) that they have a problem on their hands. The pagans have done with this what they always do – by removing God from the equation, they expose us to the gradual erosion and eventual disappearance of God’s Moral Law. They think they can maintain some vague notion of “civility” without God, and they have once again provided us with evidence that this isn’t possible.
Evangelicals, finding their children in danger as a formerly decent holiday becomes a celebration of death, are left scrambling and looking for answers. Some simply consider the holiday to be pagan and shut it out of their homes. Most try to set up alternatives at their local church. But Evangelicals meet with little success, and what success they meet with is of a fleeting character. With an incomplete understanding of the sufficiency of the work of Christ, they have allowed the pagan to “assume the center”, while they are off in the corner, acting as if Jesus isn’t really King. And with no historic understanding of the church, they are left to take what the pagans do for Halloween and “clean it up”.
The problems in this are manifold, but I’ve run out of time and I’ll have to pick this back up another day. For now, I would simply like to point Evangelicals back to the historic celebrations of the church. These are sufficient for what is needed.
For some more elaborate thoughts on Halloween, here is James Jordan’s essay about it.
Most Americans treat Halloween as they do other holidays – as a day to celebrate for no particular reason, according to traditional practices that people don’t know the origin or purpose of. If I had no other wish, I would that people actually recognized the significance of the days they observe, and questioned in an informed and intelligent fashion why they do what they do.
Halloween has historically been recognized a couple of different ways. The older form is as All Hallows’ Eve, or All Saints’ Eve. The other is, as it is in Reformation circles, as Reformation Day, because it is the anniversary of the day that Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.
I consider both observances as legitimate and compatible, though I know my Catholic brethren would disagree. And while I don’t think anything is wrong with the custom of putting on costumes and knocking on doors, of yelling “trick or treat” and getting candy, I wish that the average Christian home would seek a return to a recognition of this day as it historically has been, as a “holy day” – a day of celebration for God’s work in the lives of his saints. While I believe God can truly be honored through mindless fun, I think that an observance of the Church Calendar is irreplaceable as providing order, stability, purpose, and meaning in a Christian’s life as well as in the Christian family and community. I also believe that the Church Calendar is one of the greatest testimonies of Christ’s Kingdom, in showing that the kingdoms of this world are truly His. In observing the church calendar, we stand against the forces of paganism and secularism that seek to encroach upon more and more of our lives every day, and instead testify that we are Christ’s, that we belong to no other, and that every knee will one day bow to Him.
I would also like to add some thoughts on the “Holyween” or “Hallelujah” festivals that Evangelicals have the past few years taken to holding in an effort to provide an alternative to Halloween. I know some of these things have sprung up due to the fact that in many or most communities it is unsafe to take your children (or, in some cases of parental neglect, allowing them to go without a chaperone) to the doors of your neighbors for “trick or treat”. Part of the problem here lies in the fact that most of us don’t know our neighbors anymore. We choose rather to isolate ourselves in our houses whenever we are at home, which is growing more rare as the years go by. Increasingly, we are using our houses for little more than sleeping at night. (This is a subject worthy of its own blog entry, so I'll save further comment for another time.)
Another part of the problem lies in the fact that our country is growing more and more wicked. Insofar as the churches are simply seeking to protect children, I applaud them.
But there is a problem here in the approach. The Evangelical church has been largely secularized for years, giving up the culture to non-Christians to run. And those non-Christians have done their best to take our Holy Days and turn them into non-descript days of celebration for all to observe and exploit. Now the Evangelical church has realized (late, as usual) that they have a problem on their hands. The pagans have done with this what they always do – by removing God from the equation, they expose us to the gradual erosion and eventual disappearance of God’s Moral Law. They think they can maintain some vague notion of “civility” without God, and they have once again provided us with evidence that this isn’t possible.
Evangelicals, finding their children in danger as a formerly decent holiday becomes a celebration of death, are left scrambling and looking for answers. Some simply consider the holiday to be pagan and shut it out of their homes. Most try to set up alternatives at their local church. But Evangelicals meet with little success, and what success they meet with is of a fleeting character. With an incomplete understanding of the sufficiency of the work of Christ, they have allowed the pagan to “assume the center”, while they are off in the corner, acting as if Jesus isn’t really King. And with no historic understanding of the church, they are left to take what the pagans do for Halloween and “clean it up”.
The problems in this are manifold, but I’ve run out of time and I’ll have to pick this back up another day. For now, I would simply like to point Evangelicals back to the historic celebrations of the church. These are sufficient for what is needed.
For some more elaborate thoughts on Halloween, here is James Jordan’s essay about it.
Not Really a Music Recommendation
About a month ago, I expressed my intention to begin posting a weekly music recommendation here. After doing this once, it began to appear as if I had just laid another brick on the road to hell. In spite of my failure, I’m going to take another run at this. This week’s recommendation, though, will only be partly music.
Charlie Brown. Everybody loves the round-headed kid, that icon of the underdog in every one of us. And if you don’t think much of him any other time of year, I would expect that this is the season that you do.
The Peanuts cartoon specials have become as much a part of American pop culture as anything else. Most of America still looks each year in anticipation for the showing of the three most well known Charlie Brown specials: It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown; A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving; and A Charlie Brown Christmas. I’ve had people tell me that there’s just something special about making sure you’re home to catch them when they come on each year. But it seems like I miss them each year, so I bought them on DVD.
If you buy the boxed set, you get three additional shows: You’re Not Elected, Charlie Brown; The Mayflower Voyagers; and It’s Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown. If there’s a dud in here, it’s The Mayflower Voyagers. It is a good cartoon introduction for children to the story of the English Separatists, their trip to America, and the first few months leading up to the first Thanksgiving. And there is no shying away from mentioning God or (though somewhat ambiguously) faith. But there is still a decidedly secularist cast to the program. The Peanuts characters are the children on the Mayflower, and while there is some humorous interaction between them, the dialogue is pretty poor. I think it is simply impossible for us sometimes to imagine what conversation would have been like between godly people like these – namely, the type of conversation in which God is assumed, believed, worshipped, and trusted, and in which the name and works of God flow from the tongue as easily as anything else. Schulz failed to really capture this aspect of the Pilgrims. In addition, while Miles Standish, Samoset, and Squanto are presented, there is no mention of William Bradford (whose Of Plymouth Plantation is our main source of information on the Pilgrims’ experience), or of Pastor John Robinson or Elder William Brewster. While the previous three were certainly important, this was a pursuit of religious freedom by people who considered themselves above all to be Christians, and the importance of the latter three godly men would have been just as great or greater to them. So while there’s nothing wrong with your children watching this one, don’t trust it to give them a fully accurate telling of the story.
So this is hardly a revolutionary recommendation. It’s not exactly some imported or hard-to-find cd. But you really need to own this, so I’m recommending it.
And while you’re at it, go ahead and buy the original A Charlie Brown Christmas soundtrack by the Vince Guaraldi Trio. I know there have been other versions of the songs recorded since, but I love the original. Buy it now before the stores sell out for Christmas. You’ll love it. Your friends and acquaintances will love it. You’ll win friends and influence people. Life will be great.
That’s my recommendations for this week. I hope to get back to music exclusively next week, but we’ll see what happens.
Charlie Brown. Everybody loves the round-headed kid, that icon of the underdog in every one of us. And if you don’t think much of him any other time of year, I would expect that this is the season that you do.
The Peanuts cartoon specials have become as much a part of American pop culture as anything else. Most of America still looks each year in anticipation for the showing of the three most well known Charlie Brown specials: It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown; A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving; and A Charlie Brown Christmas. I’ve had people tell me that there’s just something special about making sure you’re home to catch them when they come on each year. But it seems like I miss them each year, so I bought them on DVD.
If you buy the boxed set, you get three additional shows: You’re Not Elected, Charlie Brown; The Mayflower Voyagers; and It’s Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown. If there’s a dud in here, it’s The Mayflower Voyagers. It is a good cartoon introduction for children to the story of the English Separatists, their trip to America, and the first few months leading up to the first Thanksgiving. And there is no shying away from mentioning God or (though somewhat ambiguously) faith. But there is still a decidedly secularist cast to the program. The Peanuts characters are the children on the Mayflower, and while there is some humorous interaction between them, the dialogue is pretty poor. I think it is simply impossible for us sometimes to imagine what conversation would have been like between godly people like these – namely, the type of conversation in which God is assumed, believed, worshipped, and trusted, and in which the name and works of God flow from the tongue as easily as anything else. Schulz failed to really capture this aspect of the Pilgrims. In addition, while Miles Standish, Samoset, and Squanto are presented, there is no mention of William Bradford (whose Of Plymouth Plantation is our main source of information on the Pilgrims’ experience), or of Pastor John Robinson or Elder William Brewster. While the previous three were certainly important, this was a pursuit of religious freedom by people who considered themselves above all to be Christians, and the importance of the latter three godly men would have been just as great or greater to them. So while there’s nothing wrong with your children watching this one, don’t trust it to give them a fully accurate telling of the story.
So this is hardly a revolutionary recommendation. It’s not exactly some imported or hard-to-find cd. But you really need to own this, so I’m recommending it.
And while you’re at it, go ahead and buy the original A Charlie Brown Christmas soundtrack by the Vince Guaraldi Trio. I know there have been other versions of the songs recorded since, but I love the original. Buy it now before the stores sell out for Christmas. You’ll love it. Your friends and acquaintances will love it. You’ll win friends and influence people. Life will be great.
That’s my recommendations for this week. I hope to get back to music exclusively next week, but we’ll see what happens.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Watson on Affliction, Part X
(10). Afflictions work for good, as they make way for glory (2 Cor. iv. 17). Not that they merit glory, but they prepare for it. As ploughing prepares the earth for a crop, so afflictions prepare and make us meet for glory. The painter lays his gold upon dark colours, so God first lays the dark colours of affliction, and then He lays the golden colour of glory. The vessel is first seasoned before wine is poured into it: the vessels of mercy are first seasoned with affliction, and then the wine of glory is poured in. Thus we see afflictions are not prejudicial, but beneficial, to the saints. We should not so much look at the evil of affliction, as the good; not so much at the dark side of the cloud, as the light. The worst that God does to His children is to whip them to heaven.
Watson on Affliction, Part IX
(9). Afflictions work for good, as they put to silence the wicked. How ready are they to asperse and calumniate the godly, that they serve God only for self interest. Therefore God will have His people endure sufferings for religion, that He may put a padlock on the lying lips of wicked men. When the atheists of the world see that God has a people, who serve Him not for a livery, but for love, this stops their mouths. The devil accused Job of hypocrisy, that he was a mercenary man, all his religion was made up of ends of gold and silver. " Doth Job serve God for naught? Hast not thou made a hedge about him? " Etc. " Well, " says God, " put forth thy hand, touch his estate " (Job i. 9). The devil had no sooner received a commission, but he falls a breaking down Job's hedge; but still Job worships God (Job. i. 20), and professes his faith in Him. " Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him " (Job. xiii. 15). This silenced the devil himself. How it strikes a damp into wicked men, when they see that the godly will keep close to God in a suffering condition, and that, when they lose all, they yet will hold fast their integrity.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Watson on Affliction, Part VIII
(8.) Afflictions work for good, as they are the means of making us happy. " Happy is the man whom God correcteth " (Job v. 17). What politician or moralist ever placed happiness in the cross? Job does. " Happy is the man whom God correcteth. "
It may be said, How do afflictions make us happy? We reply that, being sanctified, they bring us nearer to God. The moon in the full is furthest off from the sun: so are many further off from God in the full moon of prosperity; afflictions bring them nearer to God. The magnet of mercy does not draw us so near to God as the cords of affliction. When Absalom set Joab's corn on fire, then he came running to Absalom (2 Sam. xiv. 30). When God sets our worldly comforts on fire, then we run to Him, and make our peace with Him. When the prodigal was pinched with want, then he returned home to his father (Luke xv. 13). When the dove could not find any rest for the sole of her foot, then she flew to the ark. When God brings a deluge of affliction upon us, then we fly to the ark of Christ. Thus affliction makes us happy, in bringing us nearer to God. Faith can make use of the waters of affliction, to swim faster to Christ.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Watson on Affliction, Part VII
(7). Afflictions work for good, as they are a magnifying of us. " What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him, and that thou shouldest visit him every morning? " (Job vii. 17). God does by affliction magnify us three ways. (1st.) In that He will condescend so low as to take notice of us. It is an honour that God will mind dust and ashes. It is a magnifying of us, that God thinks us worthy to be smitten. God's not striking is a slighting: " Why should ye be stricken any more? " (Isa. i. 5). If you will go on in sin, take your course, sin yourselves into hell. (2nd.) Afflictions also magnify us, as they are ensigns of glory, signs of sonship. " If you endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons " (Heb. xii. 7). Every print of the rod is a badge of honour. (3rd.) Afflictions tend to the magnifying of the saints, as they make them renowned in the world. Soldiers have never been so admired for their victories, as the saints have been for their sufferings. The zeal and constancy of the martyrs in their trials have rendered them famous to posterity. How eminent was Job for his patience! God leaves his name upon record: " Ye have heard of the patience of Job " (James v. 11). Job the sufferer was more renowned than Alexander the conqueror.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Tannahill Weavers in concert
Next Saturday, October 14, the traditional Scottish band Tannahill Weavers will be performing at the Arts Center in Carrboro, NC, beginning at 8:30 pm. If you’ve never heard the Tannahill Weavers, you’re missing out on the best Scottish music around.
Be there or be English.
Be there or be English.
Watson on Affliction, Part VI
(6). Afflictions work for good, as they make way for comfort. " In the valley of Achor is a door of hope " (Hos. ii. 15). Achor signifies trouble. God sweetens outward pain with inward peace. " Your sorrow shall be turned into joy'' (John xvi. 20). Here is the water turned into wine. After a bitter pill, God gives sugar. Paul had his prison songs. God's rod has honey at the end of it. The saints in affliction have had such sweet raptures of joy, that they thought themselves in the borders of the heavenly Canaan.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Watson on Affliction, Part V
(5). Afflictions work for good, as they are the means of loosening our hearts from the world. When you dig away the earth from the root of a tree, it is to loosen the tree from the earth: so God digs away our earthly comforts to loosen our hearts from the earth. A thorn grows up with every flower. God would have the world hang as a loose tooth which, being twitched away does not much trouble us. Is it not good to be weaned? The oldest saints need it. Why does the Lord break the conduit pipe, but that we may go to Him, in whom are " all our fresh springs " (Psalm lxxxvii. 7).
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Of Visions and Revelations
…I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 Corinthians 12:1
Those that know me know that I am about as non-Charismatic as they come. This is true by my practices in worship, no matter who I’m worshipping with. I’ve never raised my hands in worship, for instance, even when worshipping with Charismatic folks - unless it was to scratch my head.
This is also true in my theology. I grew up in a church that was Cessationist in its viewpoint, meaning that they believed that certain gifts that they called the “sign gifts” ceased with the closing of the canon of Scripture around the end of the first century. Those sign gifts, in their view, included things like miraculous healing, speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, and discernment of spirits. These were supposedly in existence for the purpose of supporting the church in its infant stages, but, when the perfect came (as they interpret I Cor. 13:10), these gifts ceased. I have for the most part adopted this viewpoint.
I have had some variation in this through the years, though, as I have come to have a broader view of God’s working in the world. I think my cessationist friends would agree with me that God actually heals miraculously sometimes. I think the problem with the cessationist view is more foundational, though. Without knowing it, the Christian who takes this line has adopted a basically Deistic approach to viewing the world, which says that God only steps in every once in a while to tamper with what He created. Otherwise, the world has continued on since He first created and stepped away from it, leaving it to operate by itself according to Naturalistic principles. It seems to me that the Reformed doctrine of Providence specifically counters this idea. God is always active in the world, down to the smallest detail, taking it the direction moment by moment that He wants it to go. Then again, one has to be a Calvinist to believe that, and most Evangelicals aren’t Calvinists or are at least inconsistent in their Calvinism. But I’m digressing from my topic.
Another hit to my cessationism has been through my adopting a Sacramental view of the world. This is really just an extension of what I just addressed. God, through the work of His Second Person, has procured salvation for all His people. He then extends the fullness of that salvation to them in this world through sacramental means. This is, as the Reformed theologians have taught us, primarily through the means of grace given to the Church, but, as Doug Wilson has pointed out in his book Mother Kirk, this is broader than just the means of grace as they are traditionally defined. All of the world is sacramental, in that it communicates or delivers salvation to the one being saved.
I haven’t generally thought about these things in relation to cessationism, however. The question of what spiritual gifts continue today and in what capacity they continue is a question I have yet to address sufficiently in my theological studies, and I recognize it as a gap in my thinking. I have known of Reformed theologians who are decidedly non-cessationist. One immediately thinks of John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Gordon Fee, and the late David Chilton. I also think of James Jordan who, in his book The Sociology of the Church, proposes that God can and occasionally does work “language miracles” today. Although Jordan would probably still classify himself as a cessationist, he distinguishes the speaking of tongues that took place before the establishing of the canon and these “language miracles” he speaks of. Jordan rightly connects the developments that have taken place in the lands most impacted by the Reformation to the rationalism and mechanism of the Newtonian world view. It is no coincidence that Newton himself rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.
I also know that a number of theologians both past and present have addressed these issues. Some of their books are on my shelves, relatively untouched.
There have been those who claimed to have a conversion of sorts to the Charismatic movement and have later recanted it. Dave Hunt, who documented his own Charismatic experience in his book Confessions of a Heretic (or so I am told – I haven’t read the book), is an example of this.
My church background was somewhat inconsistent in its teaching on this. I was taught that I was to be led by the Spirit, and this was cast in terms that were decidedly Charismatic, although my fellow church members didn’t recognize this and wouldn’t have admitted it. In fact, the worship of the Plymouth Brethren is based around the principle that the Holy Spirit would lead worship himself rather than any man. But with the idea of free will running around, this caused no small measure of confusion. I was to listen for “the still, small voice” of God in prayer, a misappropriation of Elijah’s experience (I Kings 19:12) if I’ve ever heard one. I tried listening for that still small voice, believing as I had been taught that that was the way God would communicate to me. When I didn’t hear it, I believed that it was because I wasn’t holy enough, and that there was some unconfessed sin in my life. This was a source of much unnecessary emotional struggle in my young adult life. I later discovered that I wasn’t the only one to suffer under this sort of teaching. Here are a couple of articles that address these very issues, and they are articles that I would still recommend to anyone considering these things.
Having said this, I have had unusual experiences in my life that I have been unable to explain and that have left me wondering how they fit into God’s normal means of working in the world. Sometimes these seemed to be sudden and profound spiritual workings of God in my life. Sometimes these have seemed to be sudden spiritual afflictions of the “principalities and powers”, as Paul refers to them. These have been very rare in my life, but they have happened. I won’t relate the specifics. I can’t say I’ve always known why those things happened. In fact, maybe I’ve never really known. I haven’t ever been able to nail those experiences down theologically.
The reason I raise all this now is two-fold. I have a friend who had a serious emotional experience recently through which God communicated something very important to him. I won’t go into the details here, but the nature of the situation gave the clear impression that this wasn’t just something the guy ate for lunch coming back to haunt him. God actually seemed to tell him something that he wouldn’t have known apart from some miraculous revelation.
The other reason is an experience I just had earlier this week, being an unusual dream experience. Now unusual dreams, especially right before I get up, are nothing uncommon for me. One morning a few weeks ago, right before I woke up, I was dreaming I was sitting on what appeared to be a college campus listening to Ravi Zacharias speaking in the open air. As it turns out, my clock radio had come on and Ravi’s radio show was on. My mind had simply brought this into the dream.
This dream, however, was a bit more unusual, as I think you’ll see. In the dream, I was at what seemed to be a retreat center of sorts. I was there with some friends, and we had met there to talk about some serious matters that remained undefined in the dream. This part of the dream I could make sense of. I had had a similar experience over the weekend, and this was just turning up again in my dream. At this point, the setting in the dream shifted somewhat, as dreams often do. It turned out that I was actually at the Bible camp that I grew up at as a child and worked at as an adult. I then went into the chapel where worship and Bible classes were held. The dream chapel was different from the real chapel, however. It was definitely the same chapel, but much larger, more the size of a small auditorium. It had the same floor, the same folding chairs, and the same cinder block walls. And pretty close to the same color paint.
Worship was about to begin. The room was full of people. I was up front by the stage where those who led worship would be standing. At the camp I grew up at, I began to help leading the singing in my later teen years. So I spent a lot of time on the stage, and therefore my being there in the dream made sense. In the dream, I started to go get my guitar (which apparently wasn’t with me). Realizing that worship was starting and that I wouldn’t have time to get it, I sat down off to the side of the stage next to a girl in a group of people. It turned out to be a girl that I had had a crush on during my teen years. This girl was one of the few girls that I had ever regarded as being godly. And to this day, she still is. She and I have hardly ever spoken even until now. But I always admired her from afar. The strange thing about this is that through the years I attended the camp, she hardly ever came. After I first saw her, I always hoped she’d be there at the next year of camp, and she never was again until we were young adults. When we met again, I was recovering from a breakup, and we didn’t really seem to hit it off. She has since married, and in the dream I was aware of that.
During worship at the camp, we would at best have two or three guitarists and maybe a pianist. In the dream, however, there was a whole worship team on the stage, complete with male and female singers. Everybody in the room stood up as they began to sing. Normally with music in my dreams I wouldn’t actually hear a song, I would just know music was playing. But in this dream, I actually heard the song. Strangely, it wasn’t a song I think we ever sang at camp. It was instead a song we sang when I served at His Mansion Ministries. It is called You Are Worthy of My Praise. It is sung in a round, with the men taking the initial line and the women echoing immediately with the same line. And the men and women in the chapel were singing the parts in my dream. I haven’t heard that song in years, and I never play it on guitar. I don’t even like praise and worship music anymore. So this was a bit strange too. To add a bit of kookiness to the dream, the men were dancing and signing the lyrics to the song as they sang. I guess there had to be some humor in there somewhere.
And then I woke up. During the worship scene and right after I woke up I found myself overwhelmed with feelings of longing for those things from my past. And I guess all this would have been bizarre enough if not for what happened right after I awoke. I hadn’t been awake for a minute when, in my sleepy stupor, these verses popped into my head:
It was verse fifteen in particular that I thought of, though I didn’t have any of these memorized, and the passage was vague in mind. I hadn’t read Hebrews recently, and, so far as I can remember, I haven’t heard it read in church or on the radio recently either. Considering that I hadn’t heard them or read them recently, the fact that these verses came immediately to mind was the strangest part of the whole event. I would have counted the dream as being like any other aside from this.
So, what should I make of all this? Was God attempting to communicate something to me through this? Obviously the more Charismatic of us would say “yes”. And the cessationist would say “no”. And a whole bunch of people in between wouldn’t know what to say.
Do I think that God was attempting to communicate to me through this? The best answer I’ve been able to come up with as I’ve thought about it is, “Yes. I think. I’m not entirely sure. Maybe.”
I know that the past several years for me since I left the church I grew up at have been difficult in their own way. I have moved from church to church, just looking for a place I could call home. I have often felt like Adam as God brought the animals to him to name. Adam finished naming them all, and not a one of them was a suitable mate for him. And I haven’t found the church that I really feel like is suitable for me. Ending the analogy here, I’ve just dealt with each situation as best I could while I was in it.
I’ve never really regretted leaving my home church. I wouldn’t go back there. But I left much security, much certainty, and much community behind, and I wish I could have it again. But in a larger sense, I didn’t leave a church behind - I left who I was behind. This wasn’t such a voluntary thing. If I was going to mature, I had to leave. I had no idea it would lead to such a wandering in the wilderness. But I still wouldn’t go back.
Having said all of this, the best I have been able to make out of my experience is this: God has His hand on me. He is taking me to a better country than the one I left. And I may never live to see the fruit of anything I’ve done in this life. But those things done in the name of Christ and for the sake of His kingdom shall not fail, but shall serve to accomplish the goal they are purposed for. And I can rest assured that this is true.
But, as I’ve said, this is the best I can make out of the experience. I’m not going to change my theology over what happened to me. I’m not going to start attending the local Pentecostal church because of this. God has left this, as he has other experiences in my life, hidden behind a veil of mystery. If He wants to lift that veil, He can do it at any time. And until He sees fit to do that, I will strive to continue according to the truth I know from His word. That is sufficient.
Those that know me know that I am about as non-Charismatic as they come. This is true by my practices in worship, no matter who I’m worshipping with. I’ve never raised my hands in worship, for instance, even when worshipping with Charismatic folks - unless it was to scratch my head.
This is also true in my theology. I grew up in a church that was Cessationist in its viewpoint, meaning that they believed that certain gifts that they called the “sign gifts” ceased with the closing of the canon of Scripture around the end of the first century. Those sign gifts, in their view, included things like miraculous healing, speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, and discernment of spirits. These were supposedly in existence for the purpose of supporting the church in its infant stages, but, when the perfect came (as they interpret I Cor. 13:10), these gifts ceased. I have for the most part adopted this viewpoint.
I have had some variation in this through the years, though, as I have come to have a broader view of God’s working in the world. I think my cessationist friends would agree with me that God actually heals miraculously sometimes. I think the problem with the cessationist view is more foundational, though. Without knowing it, the Christian who takes this line has adopted a basically Deistic approach to viewing the world, which says that God only steps in every once in a while to tamper with what He created. Otherwise, the world has continued on since He first created and stepped away from it, leaving it to operate by itself according to Naturalistic principles. It seems to me that the Reformed doctrine of Providence specifically counters this idea. God is always active in the world, down to the smallest detail, taking it the direction moment by moment that He wants it to go. Then again, one has to be a Calvinist to believe that, and most Evangelicals aren’t Calvinists or are at least inconsistent in their Calvinism. But I’m digressing from my topic.
Another hit to my cessationism has been through my adopting a Sacramental view of the world. This is really just an extension of what I just addressed. God, through the work of His Second Person, has procured salvation for all His people. He then extends the fullness of that salvation to them in this world through sacramental means. This is, as the Reformed theologians have taught us, primarily through the means of grace given to the Church, but, as Doug Wilson has pointed out in his book Mother Kirk, this is broader than just the means of grace as they are traditionally defined. All of the world is sacramental, in that it communicates or delivers salvation to the one being saved.
I haven’t generally thought about these things in relation to cessationism, however. The question of what spiritual gifts continue today and in what capacity they continue is a question I have yet to address sufficiently in my theological studies, and I recognize it as a gap in my thinking. I have known of Reformed theologians who are decidedly non-cessationist. One immediately thinks of John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Gordon Fee, and the late David Chilton. I also think of James Jordan who, in his book The Sociology of the Church, proposes that God can and occasionally does work “language miracles” today. Although Jordan would probably still classify himself as a cessationist, he distinguishes the speaking of tongues that took place before the establishing of the canon and these “language miracles” he speaks of. Jordan rightly connects the developments that have taken place in the lands most impacted by the Reformation to the rationalism and mechanism of the Newtonian world view. It is no coincidence that Newton himself rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.
I also know that a number of theologians both past and present have addressed these issues. Some of their books are on my shelves, relatively untouched.
There have been those who claimed to have a conversion of sorts to the Charismatic movement and have later recanted it. Dave Hunt, who documented his own Charismatic experience in his book Confessions of a Heretic (or so I am told – I haven’t read the book), is an example of this.
My church background was somewhat inconsistent in its teaching on this. I was taught that I was to be led by the Spirit, and this was cast in terms that were decidedly Charismatic, although my fellow church members didn’t recognize this and wouldn’t have admitted it. In fact, the worship of the Plymouth Brethren is based around the principle that the Holy Spirit would lead worship himself rather than any man. But with the idea of free will running around, this caused no small measure of confusion. I was to listen for “the still, small voice” of God in prayer, a misappropriation of Elijah’s experience (I Kings 19:12) if I’ve ever heard one. I tried listening for that still small voice, believing as I had been taught that that was the way God would communicate to me. When I didn’t hear it, I believed that it was because I wasn’t holy enough, and that there was some unconfessed sin in my life. This was a source of much unnecessary emotional struggle in my young adult life. I later discovered that I wasn’t the only one to suffer under this sort of teaching. Here are a couple of articles that address these very issues, and they are articles that I would still recommend to anyone considering these things.
Having said this, I have had unusual experiences in my life that I have been unable to explain and that have left me wondering how they fit into God’s normal means of working in the world. Sometimes these seemed to be sudden and profound spiritual workings of God in my life. Sometimes these have seemed to be sudden spiritual afflictions of the “principalities and powers”, as Paul refers to them. These have been very rare in my life, but they have happened. I won’t relate the specifics. I can’t say I’ve always known why those things happened. In fact, maybe I’ve never really known. I haven’t ever been able to nail those experiences down theologically.
The reason I raise all this now is two-fold. I have a friend who had a serious emotional experience recently through which God communicated something very important to him. I won’t go into the details here, but the nature of the situation gave the clear impression that this wasn’t just something the guy ate for lunch coming back to haunt him. God actually seemed to tell him something that he wouldn’t have known apart from some miraculous revelation.
The other reason is an experience I just had earlier this week, being an unusual dream experience. Now unusual dreams, especially right before I get up, are nothing uncommon for me. One morning a few weeks ago, right before I woke up, I was dreaming I was sitting on what appeared to be a college campus listening to Ravi Zacharias speaking in the open air. As it turns out, my clock radio had come on and Ravi’s radio show was on. My mind had simply brought this into the dream.
This dream, however, was a bit more unusual, as I think you’ll see. In the dream, I was at what seemed to be a retreat center of sorts. I was there with some friends, and we had met there to talk about some serious matters that remained undefined in the dream. This part of the dream I could make sense of. I had had a similar experience over the weekend, and this was just turning up again in my dream. At this point, the setting in the dream shifted somewhat, as dreams often do. It turned out that I was actually at the Bible camp that I grew up at as a child and worked at as an adult. I then went into the chapel where worship and Bible classes were held. The dream chapel was different from the real chapel, however. It was definitely the same chapel, but much larger, more the size of a small auditorium. It had the same floor, the same folding chairs, and the same cinder block walls. And pretty close to the same color paint.
Worship was about to begin. The room was full of people. I was up front by the stage where those who led worship would be standing. At the camp I grew up at, I began to help leading the singing in my later teen years. So I spent a lot of time on the stage, and therefore my being there in the dream made sense. In the dream, I started to go get my guitar (which apparently wasn’t with me). Realizing that worship was starting and that I wouldn’t have time to get it, I sat down off to the side of the stage next to a girl in a group of people. It turned out to be a girl that I had had a crush on during my teen years. This girl was one of the few girls that I had ever regarded as being godly. And to this day, she still is. She and I have hardly ever spoken even until now. But I always admired her from afar. The strange thing about this is that through the years I attended the camp, she hardly ever came. After I first saw her, I always hoped she’d be there at the next year of camp, and she never was again until we were young adults. When we met again, I was recovering from a breakup, and we didn’t really seem to hit it off. She has since married, and in the dream I was aware of that.
During worship at the camp, we would at best have two or three guitarists and maybe a pianist. In the dream, however, there was a whole worship team on the stage, complete with male and female singers. Everybody in the room stood up as they began to sing. Normally with music in my dreams I wouldn’t actually hear a song, I would just know music was playing. But in this dream, I actually heard the song. Strangely, it wasn’t a song I think we ever sang at camp. It was instead a song we sang when I served at His Mansion Ministries. It is called You Are Worthy of My Praise. It is sung in a round, with the men taking the initial line and the women echoing immediately with the same line. And the men and women in the chapel were singing the parts in my dream. I haven’t heard that song in years, and I never play it on guitar. I don’t even like praise and worship music anymore. So this was a bit strange too. To add a bit of kookiness to the dream, the men were dancing and signing the lyrics to the song as they sang. I guess there had to be some humor in there somewhere.
And then I woke up. During the worship scene and right after I woke up I found myself overwhelmed with feelings of longing for those things from my past. And I guess all this would have been bizarre enough if not for what happened right after I awoke. I hadn’t been awake for a minute when, in my sleepy stupor, these verses popped into my head:
13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.
It was verse fifteen in particular that I thought of, though I didn’t have any of these memorized, and the passage was vague in mind. I hadn’t read Hebrews recently, and, so far as I can remember, I haven’t heard it read in church or on the radio recently either. Considering that I hadn’t heard them or read them recently, the fact that these verses came immediately to mind was the strangest part of the whole event. I would have counted the dream as being like any other aside from this.
So, what should I make of all this? Was God attempting to communicate something to me through this? Obviously the more Charismatic of us would say “yes”. And the cessationist would say “no”. And a whole bunch of people in between wouldn’t know what to say.
Do I think that God was attempting to communicate to me through this? The best answer I’ve been able to come up with as I’ve thought about it is, “Yes. I think. I’m not entirely sure. Maybe.”
I know that the past several years for me since I left the church I grew up at have been difficult in their own way. I have moved from church to church, just looking for a place I could call home. I have often felt like Adam as God brought the animals to him to name. Adam finished naming them all, and not a one of them was a suitable mate for him. And I haven’t found the church that I really feel like is suitable for me. Ending the analogy here, I’ve just dealt with each situation as best I could while I was in it.
I’ve never really regretted leaving my home church. I wouldn’t go back there. But I left much security, much certainty, and much community behind, and I wish I could have it again. But in a larger sense, I didn’t leave a church behind - I left who I was behind. This wasn’t such a voluntary thing. If I was going to mature, I had to leave. I had no idea it would lead to such a wandering in the wilderness. But I still wouldn’t go back.
Having said all of this, the best I have been able to make out of my experience is this: God has His hand on me. He is taking me to a better country than the one I left. And I may never live to see the fruit of anything I’ve done in this life. But those things done in the name of Christ and for the sake of His kingdom shall not fail, but shall serve to accomplish the goal they are purposed for. And I can rest assured that this is true.
But, as I’ve said, this is the best I can make out of the experience. I’m not going to change my theology over what happened to me. I’m not going to start attending the local Pentecostal church because of this. God has left this, as he has other experiences in my life, hidden behind a veil of mystery. If He wants to lift that veil, He can do it at any time. And until He sees fit to do that, I will strive to continue according to the truth I know from His word. That is sufficient.
Watson on Affliction, Part IV
(4). Afflictions work for good to the godly, as they are destructive to sin. Sin is the mother, affliction is the daughter; the daughter helps to destroy the mother. Sin is like the tree that breeds the worm, and affliction is like the worm that eats the tree. There is much corruption in the best heart: affliction does by degrees work it out, as the fire works out the dross from the gold, "This is all the fruit, to take away his sin" (Isa. xxvii. 9). What if we have more of the rough file, if we have less rust! Afflictions carry away nothing but the dross of sin. If a physician should say to a patient, "Your body is distempered, and full of bad humours, which must be cleared out, or you die; but I will prescribe physic (1) which, though it may make you sick, yet it will carry away the dregs of your disease, and save your life" : would not this be for the good of the patient? Afflictions are the medicine which God uses to carry off our spiritual diseases; they cure the timpani (2) of pride, the fever of lust, the dropsy of covetousness. Do they not then work for good?
(1) Medicine.
(2) A tumour, a swelling.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Dawgawnit
I don’t get what’s up with the current obsession by a certain portion of our society with small dogs. You know which ones I’m talking about. The tiny ones. The ankle biters. The toe snappers. That’s the dogs, not the ones obsessed with them. And, of course, you know who the “certain portion of our society” is. I’ll say no more.
I was on my way to church this past Sunday when I passed by a lady with one of these dogs in her car. She was driving one of those cars just a hair smaller than the QE II – I think it was a Cadillac. She was steering the car with one hand and holding her dog in the other. Which makes sense, of course. When transporting a small dog in a car, there’s no safer place for it than carefully sandwiched between the driver and the steering wheel. I guess if you wanted to do one better, you could just strap that puppy to the front bumper. Everybody knows that the majority of people injured in a car accident are inside the car at the moment of impact. (And dogs are people, too.) Then again, I guess it’s kind of hard to keep the warm fuzzies going with half a ton of steel between you and your poochie-woochie.
It occurred to me later that she was probably on her way to one of those “Blessing of the Animals” services. At the rate that dog’s life was going, it needed some blessing.
I was on my way to church this past Sunday when I passed by a lady with one of these dogs in her car. She was driving one of those cars just a hair smaller than the QE II – I think it was a Cadillac. She was steering the car with one hand and holding her dog in the other. Which makes sense, of course. When transporting a small dog in a car, there’s no safer place for it than carefully sandwiched between the driver and the steering wheel. I guess if you wanted to do one better, you could just strap that puppy to the front bumper. Everybody knows that the majority of people injured in a car accident are inside the car at the moment of impact. (And dogs are people, too.) Then again, I guess it’s kind of hard to keep the warm fuzzies going with half a ton of steel between you and your poochie-woochie.
It occurred to me later that she was probably on her way to one of those “Blessing of the Animals” services. At the rate that dog’s life was going, it needed some blessing.
Watson on Affliction, Part III
(3). Afflictions work for good, as they conform us to Christ. God's rod is a pencil to draw Christ's image more lively upon us. It is good that there should be symmetry and proportion between the Head and the members. Would we be parts of Christ's mystical body, and not like Him? His life, as Calvin says, was a series of sufferings, " a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief " (Isa. liii. 3). He wept, and bled. Was His head crowned with thorns, and do we think to be crowned with roses? It is good to be like Christ, though it be by sufferings. Jesus Christ drank a bitter cup, it made Him sweat drops of blood to think of it; and, though it be true He drank the poison in the cup (the wrath of God) yet there is some wormwood in the cup left, which the saints must drink: only here is the difference between Christ's sufferings and ours; His were satisfactory (1), ours are only castigatory (2).
(1)To make satisfaction for (pay the price of) sin.
(2)By way of chastisement.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Watson on Affliction, Part II
(2). Afflictions work for good, as they are the means of making the heart more upright. In prosperity the heart is apt to be divided (Hos. x. 2). The heart cleaves partly to God, and partly to the world. It is like a needle between two loadstones: God draws, and the world draws. Now God takes away the world, that the heart may cleave more to Him in sincerity. Correction is a setting the heart right and straight. As we sometimes hold a crooked rod over the fire to straighten it; so God holds us over the fire of affliction to make us more straight and upright. Oh, how good it is, when sin has bent the soul awry from God, that affliction should straighten it again!
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Watson on Affliction, Intro and Part I
Fall has begun to settle upon us here in North Carolina. Due to a variety of experiences in my life, I find that it is this time of the year that my mind is turned to thinking about the 17th century reformers of Britain and Scotland, in particular, the English Puritans, the Scottish Covenanters, and the English Separatists. One of the things I thought I would do because of this is to post some of the writings of English Puritan Thomas Watson.
I know little of Thomas Watson, but what I do know is significant for the text I will be posting. He lived during the English civil war and stood in opposition to the intrusion of the state into the matters of the church. But being a Presbyterian, he worked during the Interregnum with fellow Puritan Christopher Love in effort to establish Charles II on the throne in his father’s place. For this he was temporarily imprisoned. Charles was later restored to his throne, but this no doubt brought results other than what Watson expected. He was ejected from the church with approximately 2000 other ministers during Charles’s reign for refusing to conform to the standards of the national church. Like many other Nonconformists, he continued to minister in private until the Declaration of Indulgence allowed him to return to the ministry.
Under his fellow Puritans, he was imprisoned. Under a crypto-Catholic king, he was ejected from his pulpit. It's easy to understand how Thomas Watson could tell us something about the good providence of God in affliction.
For this reason, the text I have chosen to post comes from Watson’s work A Divine Cordial. It is now published by Banner of Truth Trust as All Things For Good. Those interested in reading the entire work may do so here. I will be posting, a little bit at a time, a series of pieces from chapter two of the work, which is entitled “The Worst Things Work For Good To The Godly”.
Before getting to Watson himself, though, let me point out a couple of wonderful things the reader will find in the better Puritans’ writings. For one, I am struck by the affection the Puritans had for those who they hoped would read their writings, as well as for God. These were not mere theological exercises. These men were pastors, and had a sincere desire not only for the glory of God, but also for the spiritual comfort and benefit of believers. Secondly, I am amazed by the Puritans’ use of metaphor and analogy. Their writings were rich in pictures, both from Scripture and from nature, and served to beautify their writing and to clearly illustrate their teachings.
We will be jumping a couple of pages into the chapter, in the section “The evil of affliction works for good to the godly”, as Watson begins to list the ways this is true.
I know little of Thomas Watson, but what I do know is significant for the text I will be posting. He lived during the English civil war and stood in opposition to the intrusion of the state into the matters of the church. But being a Presbyterian, he worked during the Interregnum with fellow Puritan Christopher Love in effort to establish Charles II on the throne in his father’s place. For this he was temporarily imprisoned. Charles was later restored to his throne, but this no doubt brought results other than what Watson expected. He was ejected from the church with approximately 2000 other ministers during Charles’s reign for refusing to conform to the standards of the national church. Like many other Nonconformists, he continued to minister in private until the Declaration of Indulgence allowed him to return to the ministry.
Under his fellow Puritans, he was imprisoned. Under a crypto-Catholic king, he was ejected from his pulpit. It's easy to understand how Thomas Watson could tell us something about the good providence of God in affliction.
For this reason, the text I have chosen to post comes from Watson’s work A Divine Cordial. It is now published by Banner of Truth Trust as All Things For Good. Those interested in reading the entire work may do so here. I will be posting, a little bit at a time, a series of pieces from chapter two of the work, which is entitled “The Worst Things Work For Good To The Godly”.
Before getting to Watson himself, though, let me point out a couple of wonderful things the reader will find in the better Puritans’ writings. For one, I am struck by the affection the Puritans had for those who they hoped would read their writings, as well as for God. These were not mere theological exercises. These men were pastors, and had a sincere desire not only for the glory of God, but also for the spiritual comfort and benefit of believers. Secondly, I am amazed by the Puritans’ use of metaphor and analogy. Their writings were rich in pictures, both from Scripture and from nature, and served to beautify their writing and to clearly illustrate their teachings.
We will be jumping a couple of pages into the chapter, in the section “The evil of affliction works for good to the godly”, as Watson begins to list the ways this is true.
As the hard frosts in winter bring on the flowers in the spring, as the night ushers in the morning star: so the evils of affliction produce much good to those that love God. But we are ready to question the truth of this, and say, as Mary did to the angel, " How can this be? " Therefore I shall show you several ways how affliction works for good.
(1). As it is our preacher and tutor - "Hear ye the rod" (Mic. vi. 9). Luther said that he could never rightly understand some of the Psalms, till he was in affliction. Affliction teaches what sin is. In the word preached, we hear what a dreadful thing sin is, that it is both defiling and damning, but we fear it no more than a painted lion; therefore God lets loose affliction, and then we feel sin bitter in the fruit of it. A sick bed often teaches more than a sermon. We can best see the ugly visage of sin in the glass of affliction. Affliction teaches us to know ourselves. In prosperity we are for the most part strangers to ourselves. God makes us know affliction, that we may better know ourselves. We see that corruption in our hearts in the time of affliction, which we would not believe was there. Water in the glass looks clear, but set it on the fire, and the scum boils up. In prosperity, a man seems to be humble and thankful, the water looks clear; but set this man a little on the fire of affliction, and the scum boils up - much impatience and unbelief appear. "Oh," says a Christian, "I never thought I had such a bad heart, as now I see I have: I never thought my corruptions had been so strong, and my graces so weak."
Thursday, September 28, 2006
That Hitchcock was such a kidder
Turner Movie Classics has been showing reruns of The Dick Cavett Show. I happened upon an episode last night in which Cavett was interviewing Alfred Hitchcock. After showing a scene from Hitchcock’s movie Frenzy (which was new at the time), Hitchcock went on to describe the scene in the most bland fashion possible. The scene featured a corpse falling out of a potato sack in the back of a truck. He concluded the description by saying that the point of the scene was that the corpse improved the taste of the potatoes.
And I am feeling that much better about my own sense of humor.
And I am feeling that much better about my own sense of humor.
Snakes In My Basement
This past Sunday morning at church, my minister announced that on an upcoming Saturday he would be holding a service for the blessing of the animals. “Bring all your pets,” he instructed us, “except snakes.” Having forgotten temporarily that God had cursed the snake (Gen. 3:14-15), I was surprised to hear that current Anglican outreach practices aren’t ecumenical enough to extend to our serpentine friends. If snakes were blessed at the service, I thought, it wouldn’t be the first time they were welcomed by the Anglican communion. At any rate, since I don’t own a pet, this didn’t apply to me. Or so I thought.
It wasn’t until later that evening that, in the spirit of the least creatively titled movie of all time, I found a snake in my basement. I was on the way to the washing machine when what appeared to be a baby copperhead slithered across my path. If he had been stretched out, I imagine he would have been about nine inches in length. I didn’t let him live long enough to find out. I thought later that it might have been more appropriate to kill him by stepping on his head, if for symbolic reasons alone. Instead I opted to hack him to pieces with a flat-nosed shovel, after which I cast the remnants of his body into the outer darkness of the night. This method proved to be wise enough.
The night found me sleepless and concerned that my deceased adversary might have near relatives somewhere hid in the recesses of the basement. An acquaintance has since assured me that this was probably just a fruit snake, which looks like a small copperhead, and that they like to come in the house when it’s raining, which it had been. (Let them build their own houses, I say.) Eventhough I’m feeling confident that this fellow knew what he was talking about, only time and a lot of searching the basement will tell for sure.
It wasn’t until later that evening that, in the spirit of the least creatively titled movie of all time, I found a snake in my basement. I was on the way to the washing machine when what appeared to be a baby copperhead slithered across my path. If he had been stretched out, I imagine he would have been about nine inches in length. I didn’t let him live long enough to find out. I thought later that it might have been more appropriate to kill him by stepping on his head, if for symbolic reasons alone. Instead I opted to hack him to pieces with a flat-nosed shovel, after which I cast the remnants of his body into the outer darkness of the night. This method proved to be wise enough.
The night found me sleepless and concerned that my deceased adversary might have near relatives somewhere hid in the recesses of the basement. An acquaintance has since assured me that this was probably just a fruit snake, which looks like a small copperhead, and that they like to come in the house when it’s raining, which it had been. (Let them build their own houses, I say.) Eventhough I’m feeling confident that this fellow knew what he was talking about, only time and a lot of searching the basement will tell for sure.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
The Zeitgeist
He who would marry the spirit of the age soon finds himself a widower.
- Anglican theologian W. R. Inge
- Anglican theologian W. R. Inge
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Leithartian Poetry
You know, I really, really enjoyed this. Somebody apparently was knee-deep in the Iliad at the time. I especially liked the invocation of the goddess at the beginning and the graphic, Homer-like description of the game of dodge ball. Fun stuff.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Fernando Ortega on Worship
One of the few Contemporary Christian artists I listen to is Fernando Ortega. It was hearing his rendition of the hymn “I Will Sing of My Redeemer” that sold me on his music. I immediately ran out and bought the cd that that song was on, This Bright Hour.
I ran across this interview with him from a few years ago this evening. Something about his music sets him apart from other Christian musicians, and this interview helps to show what is behind that difference. Aside from performing beautiful and faithful yet contemporary renditions of hymns, the music he writes conveys a sense of wonder at the transcendence of God and a joy in the world He has created. It’s no surprise that he was raised a Presbyterian and, at the time of this interview, was attending a Christian Reformed church. In the interview, he gives some great insights into the nature of worship, attacking sentimentalism, utilitarianism, seeker-sensitive worship, and, in his words, “the dreaded ‘drama team’”. Well worth the read.
I ran across this interview with him from a few years ago this evening. Something about his music sets him apart from other Christian musicians, and this interview helps to show what is behind that difference. Aside from performing beautiful and faithful yet contemporary renditions of hymns, the music he writes conveys a sense of wonder at the transcendence of God and a joy in the world He has created. It’s no surprise that he was raised a Presbyterian and, at the time of this interview, was attending a Christian Reformed church. In the interview, he gives some great insights into the nature of worship, attacking sentimentalism, utilitarianism, seeker-sensitive worship, and, in his words, “the dreaded ‘drama team’”. Well worth the read.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Music Recommendations
When I find music that I think is really good, I like to be able to recommend it to others. Because of this, I have decided that I will attempt to, once a week, place one or two album recommendations on this blog. I will be putting links to Amazon simply for the convenience of those interested in tracking these cd’s down. I’m not receiving any reimbursement from Amazon for this, but their website is a good place to start in learning about what’s out there and what others have said about the music. You might want to try to get these else where, and if you do, then I say do it.
Here are a couple to start out with. I thought I would begin with a couple from a more classical direction.
First is this rendition of J. S. Bach’s French Suites for keyboard. I am aware that these have been performed and recorded numerous times on piano, but I’m a bit partial to the harpsichord. So that’s the instrument used on this recording. These are solo keyboard pieces. It is a two disc set, and it is incredibly inexpensive at that. I wish I was well enough educated in music theory and history to comment further on this, but I’m not. I just like them.
Second is a cd that appears to be out of print, but I will recommend it anyway. It is this recording from the early music ensemble Hesperion XX. This is a compilation cd from many of their works. It is the only cd I have by them, but I love it. I have a great interest in early music instruments, the most of which I have no idea what their names are. But once again, my ignorance in the technicalities of the music doesn’t prevent me from enjoying it. If you can track it down somewhere, pick it up.
The Hesperion XX cd might be showing as out of print on Amazon's website because it is imported from France. If you go looking for it, then, you might consider checking on a website that specializes in International music.
Here are a couple to start out with. I thought I would begin with a couple from a more classical direction.
First is this rendition of J. S. Bach’s French Suites for keyboard. I am aware that these have been performed and recorded numerous times on piano, but I’m a bit partial to the harpsichord. So that’s the instrument used on this recording. These are solo keyboard pieces. It is a two disc set, and it is incredibly inexpensive at that. I wish I was well enough educated in music theory and history to comment further on this, but I’m not. I just like them.
Second is a cd that appears to be out of print, but I will recommend it anyway. It is this recording from the early music ensemble Hesperion XX. This is a compilation cd from many of their works. It is the only cd I have by them, but I love it. I have a great interest in early music instruments, the most of which I have no idea what their names are. But once again, my ignorance in the technicalities of the music doesn’t prevent me from enjoying it. If you can track it down somewhere, pick it up.
The Hesperion XX cd might be showing as out of print on Amazon's website because it is imported from France. If you go looking for it, then, you might consider checking on a website that specializes in International music.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Ain't America Great?
Today my Scotch-Irish mother was given Amish Friendship Bread by a Costa Rican. Sometimes multiculturalism is just a hoot.
Masculine Nurture
I have been attending a parish of the Anglican Province of America for almost a year now, and began Confirmation classes this evening. And so, since the APA is now in full communion with the Reformed Episcopal Church, I have been reading Allen C. Guelzo’s book For the Union of Evangelical Christendom: The Irony of the Reformed Episcopalians on and off for a few months. I’m over half way through at this point. So far it has been a rather sad account of the history of the Protestant Episcopal Church and the REC’s formation. Some of the reviewers of the book over at Amazon accuse Guelzo of strong bias in his writing and clearly inaccurate information in the book. I can’t verify that there is inaccurate information, since I know little of the history of the church outside of what I’ve read in Guelzo’s book. I can verify that he often inserts much personal conjecture in the book, which I think adds to the rather depressing nature of the work and makes it hard to read without constantly questioning the information presented. Considering also that Mr. Guelzo defected from the REC some years back and went to the ECUSA, one wonders all the more how much of what is written in the book can be trusted. Nonetheless, I labor on, assuming there is enough truth for it to merit the effort.
On a some what different note, I have on occasion run across things in the book that I’ve found curious enough that they have stuck with me. The following quote, which speaks of George Cummins, the first bishop of the REC, is an example of this:
I’ve gone back and read that quote several times, and every time I do, the only words that come to mind are, “Ummm…huh?” I recognize that this is part of what Ann Douglas called the feminization of American culture that began in the 19th century, so I suppose it makes sense. But it baffles me that anyone could ever think to speak of a man that way and think it’s a compliment. One of the key issues here, I think, is the notion that to be religious is to be feminine, and vice-versa. We’re still reaping the harvest of this false idea in a number of different ways, women’s ordination not being the least of these. I immediately think of how common it was for me growing up to see women bringing their children to church without their husbands, even though the husband was living with the family and faithfully working to provide for them. Now in my church most families came as a whole, husband included. But whenever you had a case of only one parent coming, it was inevitably the case that the mother and not the father brought the children. I know of only one case where the mother was not a Christian, and so the father, who was a faithful believer, brought the children. This reality is a symptom to begin with, though it eventually becomes a cause of other problems, such as women’s ordination.
Ann Douglas, who actually wrote a book about this entitled The Feminization of American Culture, talked about these things a few years back in an interview with Michael Horton on the White Horse Inn. In the interview they drew the connection of the rise of Sentimentalism and Feminism with the rise of the rejection of the doctrines of the sovereignty of God, the substitutionary atonement, and eternal punishment. These things continue today in certain Evangelical circles. The connection here can also be made to the Revival hymnody and the sappy Contemporary worship music that most of us are forced to endure at some point in our lives today.
I think there is something more subtle in the above quote that should be commented on. It is implied in the analysis of Bp. Cummins’s behaviour that to be a faithful pastor is to be a nurturer, and to be a nurturer is to be feminine, and therefore to be a faithful pastor is to be feminine. I haven’t given any thought of this until just now, so I can’t really comment on it conclusively. I will speculate out loud though, and I might have to change this later, but here we go. I think the error here is coming from two different directions (at least). One is the idea that nurturing is exclusively a feminine domain, and there is no such thing as a masculine-type of nurture. So when a man tries to fill in the role of nurturer that he is required to (for whatever reason and in whatever situation he is required to), the only model he has to operate with is a feminine one, since he has been taught no other model, either in formal teaching or by example. (I can’t say myself that I fully know what a masculine type of nurture looks like, but I’m sure some of my married friends could answer that question.) Also, there is the notion that to be a nurturer is to be constantly physically present. One of the aspects pointed out in the quote is Bp. Cummins’s daily participation in the lives of his parishioners. But we have a tendency to think of men as physically absent. Men are, by the nature of the task they are assigned by God, often absent from the lives of those they are to nurture. This doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t fulfilling their role as a nurturer. It just means that their role has certain parameters, and that doesn’t include being physically present 24 hours a day. Now I think a father needs to spend time with his children as much as he can, but there are times when he just can’t. And there are also occasions when it might be wise or necessary for him to be physically absent – for instance, the father who is an elder can’t take his children along with him when he goes to a session meeting. And one of the aspects of maturity, whether it be physical or spiritual, is learning to depend on the work of God in one’s own life, putting into practice the things we know and have been taught without someone there to hold our hand (other than the Holy Spirit, of course). One should also consider the extraordinary circumstances under which Bp. Cummins was working, that being the outbreak of cholera. Such situations are unusual, and often require that extra attention be given than is normal. This can be true in the case of fathers as well as pastors.
I will say, though, that I think at this point there is a bit of cleavage in the analogy. While I think the above statements are true, pastors are nurturers that God has given to be there for us until the day we die. This is generally different from the role of fathers in our lives. As soon as a pastor leaves, whether through his own death or for some other reason, God raises up another one for us. There is certainly a sense of separation in which the older a person gets the more the faith becomes their faith, and he must work to sustain it without the constant presence of a guide. But we are never to be without a shepherd. And while a mature man shouldn’t feel the need to have his pastor around at all times, I do think there needs to be some improvement done in this area in the church by which the pastors are more present in their parishioners’ lives. I think the example of the high church traditions should be taken into account here. For one thing, I would like to see a return to daily corporate prayer in the local parish. This is something I plan to blog about in the future, so I will leave it at that for now. Also, the pastors themselves, and not just the other elders and the deacons, need to be visiting the sick and the shut-ins. One of the main reasons for this is so that the people who can’t attend worship on Sundays can partake of communion. I know that for Presbyterians this idea creates a problem in conforming to WCF 29.4, but I think there are ways of approaching this without violation of the Confession at this point and still allowing for a person to commune when they can’t show up on Sundays. I also think pastors should return to an understanding of their duty as a counselor to those in need of one. Generally speaking (notice that I said generally), believers shouldn’t need to go to a psychiatrist or psychologist. Pastors, here aided by their elders and deacons, should be able to provide for these needs. There are more aspects related to this than I can get into right now. But these things at least would begin to put the pastor back into the role of being not only the resident scholar, but also the shepherd of his flock. This would also serve as a model of masculine nurture, which is especially needed in our day of absent fathers.
Considering these things, I think Bp. Cummins’s practice shown above seemed to be the right one. Not having been around to know the man, I can’t really comment on the comparison of him to “a gentle, refined woman”, other than to say I hope it wasn’t really true. I hope the one making the comment simply didn’t understand the nature of true pastoral work.
On a some what different note, I have on occasion run across things in the book that I’ve found curious enough that they have stuck with me. The following quote, which speaks of George Cummins, the first bishop of the REC, is an example of this:
And more than describing it, Cummins worked to internalize that ideal of Evangelical self-sacrifice. In the summer of 1849, when cholera ravaged Norfolk, Cummins stayed “at his post of duty through all those terrible months, visiting night and day, and ministering not only to his own people but to many poor colored persons, who suffered most from the dread pestilence.” It was this in Cummins that made Charles Edward Cheney remember Cummins’s “sweet and beautiful spirit of sunshine” and that made Benjamin Leacock describe him as “one of the loveliest Christian men I ever knew,” with “the nature of a gentle, refined woman.” (p. 93)
I’ve gone back and read that quote several times, and every time I do, the only words that come to mind are, “Ummm…huh?” I recognize that this is part of what Ann Douglas called the feminization of American culture that began in the 19th century, so I suppose it makes sense. But it baffles me that anyone could ever think to speak of a man that way and think it’s a compliment. One of the key issues here, I think, is the notion that to be religious is to be feminine, and vice-versa. We’re still reaping the harvest of this false idea in a number of different ways, women’s ordination not being the least of these. I immediately think of how common it was for me growing up to see women bringing their children to church without their husbands, even though the husband was living with the family and faithfully working to provide for them. Now in my church most families came as a whole, husband included. But whenever you had a case of only one parent coming, it was inevitably the case that the mother and not the father brought the children. I know of only one case where the mother was not a Christian, and so the father, who was a faithful believer, brought the children. This reality is a symptom to begin with, though it eventually becomes a cause of other problems, such as women’s ordination.
Ann Douglas, who actually wrote a book about this entitled The Feminization of American Culture, talked about these things a few years back in an interview with Michael Horton on the White Horse Inn. In the interview they drew the connection of the rise of Sentimentalism and Feminism with the rise of the rejection of the doctrines of the sovereignty of God, the substitutionary atonement, and eternal punishment. These things continue today in certain Evangelical circles. The connection here can also be made to the Revival hymnody and the sappy Contemporary worship music that most of us are forced to endure at some point in our lives today.
I think there is something more subtle in the above quote that should be commented on. It is implied in the analysis of Bp. Cummins’s behaviour that to be a faithful pastor is to be a nurturer, and to be a nurturer is to be feminine, and therefore to be a faithful pastor is to be feminine. I haven’t given any thought of this until just now, so I can’t really comment on it conclusively. I will speculate out loud though, and I might have to change this later, but here we go. I think the error here is coming from two different directions (at least). One is the idea that nurturing is exclusively a feminine domain, and there is no such thing as a masculine-type of nurture. So when a man tries to fill in the role of nurturer that he is required to (for whatever reason and in whatever situation he is required to), the only model he has to operate with is a feminine one, since he has been taught no other model, either in formal teaching or by example. (I can’t say myself that I fully know what a masculine type of nurture looks like, but I’m sure some of my married friends could answer that question.) Also, there is the notion that to be a nurturer is to be constantly physically present. One of the aspects pointed out in the quote is Bp. Cummins’s daily participation in the lives of his parishioners. But we have a tendency to think of men as physically absent. Men are, by the nature of the task they are assigned by God, often absent from the lives of those they are to nurture. This doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t fulfilling their role as a nurturer. It just means that their role has certain parameters, and that doesn’t include being physically present 24 hours a day. Now I think a father needs to spend time with his children as much as he can, but there are times when he just can’t. And there are also occasions when it might be wise or necessary for him to be physically absent – for instance, the father who is an elder can’t take his children along with him when he goes to a session meeting. And one of the aspects of maturity, whether it be physical or spiritual, is learning to depend on the work of God in one’s own life, putting into practice the things we know and have been taught without someone there to hold our hand (other than the Holy Spirit, of course). One should also consider the extraordinary circumstances under which Bp. Cummins was working, that being the outbreak of cholera. Such situations are unusual, and often require that extra attention be given than is normal. This can be true in the case of fathers as well as pastors.
I will say, though, that I think at this point there is a bit of cleavage in the analogy. While I think the above statements are true, pastors are nurturers that God has given to be there for us until the day we die. This is generally different from the role of fathers in our lives. As soon as a pastor leaves, whether through his own death or for some other reason, God raises up another one for us. There is certainly a sense of separation in which the older a person gets the more the faith becomes their faith, and he must work to sustain it without the constant presence of a guide. But we are never to be without a shepherd. And while a mature man shouldn’t feel the need to have his pastor around at all times, I do think there needs to be some improvement done in this area in the church by which the pastors are more present in their parishioners’ lives. I think the example of the high church traditions should be taken into account here. For one thing, I would like to see a return to daily corporate prayer in the local parish. This is something I plan to blog about in the future, so I will leave it at that for now. Also, the pastors themselves, and not just the other elders and the deacons, need to be visiting the sick and the shut-ins. One of the main reasons for this is so that the people who can’t attend worship on Sundays can partake of communion. I know that for Presbyterians this idea creates a problem in conforming to WCF 29.4, but I think there are ways of approaching this without violation of the Confession at this point and still allowing for a person to commune when they can’t show up on Sundays. I also think pastors should return to an understanding of their duty as a counselor to those in need of one. Generally speaking (notice that I said generally), believers shouldn’t need to go to a psychiatrist or psychologist. Pastors, here aided by their elders and deacons, should be able to provide for these needs. There are more aspects related to this than I can get into right now. But these things at least would begin to put the pastor back into the role of being not only the resident scholar, but also the shepherd of his flock. This would also serve as a model of masculine nurture, which is especially needed in our day of absent fathers.
Considering these things, I think Bp. Cummins’s practice shown above seemed to be the right one. Not having been around to know the man, I can’t really comment on the comparison of him to “a gentle, refined woman”, other than to say I hope it wasn’t really true. I hope the one making the comment simply didn’t understand the nature of true pastoral work.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
It's a Big Lie
The idea that socks could ever be “One Size Fits All” is a lie perpetuated by people with big feet.
Friday, September 08, 2006
The Death of the West
This article linked by Jeff Meyers is incredibly sad. I consider this to be an example of post-Christian Europe at its worst.
Mark Horne brought up an interesting comparison to Polly and Digory walking in Charn. But it made me think of P. D. James’ The Children of Men.
Mark Horne brought up an interesting comparison to Polly and Digory walking in Charn. But it made me think of P. D. James’ The Children of Men.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
CT on Calvinism
The latest issue of Christianity Today has as its cover story an article entitled “Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church.” I’m always glad when Reformed theology gets press, so I picked up the issue. I was tempted to put it back when I saw that the cover features a guy wearing a t-shirt that says “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy”, but I bought it anyway.
The article looks at the influence that Reformed theology has in portions of the church today, and especially its draw on the younger crowd. The author even states that the Calvinist movement may be “larger and more pervasive” than the oft talked about Emergent movement, citing conference and church membership statistics in support of the claim.
I found a couple of things in the article especially interesting. While the author clearly is attempting to represent “Reformed theology” and its influence in the church, the article almost exclusively deals with Calvinistic Baptists. There is a picture of PCA minister Ligon Duncan beside four Baptist ministers, though the article doesn’t mention him at all. R. C. Sproul and J. I. Packer are both mentioned in passing late in the article, as are some long deceased paedobaptists. And there is a sidebar (I don’t know if it was written by the same author)that lists some paedobaptist ministers and ministries, but they are mixed in with a group of Baptist ministers and ministries. On the flip side, the article revolves around the author’s discussions about and conversations with John Piper, Joshua Harris, Al Mohler, and Mark Dever, all of whom are Baptists. The author also spends time discussing the distress that Calvinism is causing among the Arminian contingency in the Southern Baptist Convention. Whether or not the author realizes it (and I’m not sure he does), his real concern in the article is with Baptist culture, not with the whole church. That’s fine, of course, but the article might have been more aptly titled.
Another thing I found interesting was the statement by one Southern Baptist seminarian that he “had never even read Calvin”, eventhough he claims to be a Calvinist. The article goes on to state, “(i)ndeed, the renowned reformer [that is, John Calvin] appears not to be a major figure among the latest generation to claim the theology he made famous.” The author cites George Whitfield as having said he had never read Calvin either.
Now I’ll admit that I haven’t read much Calvin myself. I’ve read some of his Institutes, as well as some from his commentaries on the Scriptures. But it baffles me for someone to claim to be a Calvinist and to not have read him at all. I imagine part of the problem here stems back to C. H. Spurgeon. When Spurgeon talked about the Doctrines of Grace, he spoke of them as being nicknamed “Calvinism”. I can’t say that that means of naming began with him, but inasmuch as he is sort of the patron saint of “Calvinistic Baptists”, I suspect him to be the popularizer of this. I like Spurgeon myself, and have benefited from him immensely, so I don’t intend to just trash him. But he was a Baptist. And besides the issue of baptism, he and Calvin would have disagreed on a number of key doctrines.
When I was first wrestling with the Doctrines of Grace, I had a friend who was raised Dutch Reformed, in a place where “Calvinism” was understood to include more than just the “Five Points”. I, being raised in a Baptistic setting where “Calvinism” only referred to “TULIP”, would use the term in that way, and he would have to adjust his thinking to understand what I was saying. Becoming aware of this, it was the first time I began to think of the term “Calvinism” in a broader way.
A couple of years later, in a conversation with an acquaintance of Michael Scott Horton, I discovered Horton’s distaste for this use of the term. Horton had told this acquaintance that he preferred to refer to so-called Calvinistic Baptists as “Classical Baptists”, referring to the original Baptists who wrote the Baptist Confessions of 1646 and 1689. These Baptists held to predestination as do those who call themselves Calvinistic or Reformed Baptists today.
I have also found it interesting at times to hear some Baptists say they hold to the Canons of Dordt. I can only assume that those who say this haven’t actually read them, or else they would have noticed this in the First Head of Doctrine, Article 17:
I still use the term “Calvinism” to refer to the Doctrines of Grace for the most part, because that’s the way it’s generally used in my still mostly-Baptist Southern culture. And I appreciate the strong stance that these “Reformed” Baptists take on the Doctrines of Grace, and consider them close allies in the fight against the autonomy of man. But I think I would side with Michael Horton in wishing that they be referred to by a different name. And while they’re deciding what they should call themselves, maybe they can read some Calvin and begin to see the more Biblical approach found in what he actually believed and taught. For that matter, I need to read more of him myself.
Having offered these critiques, I still appreciate the article. Even if these men are all Baptists, I can only regard an increase in the acceptance of the Sovereignty of God to be a good thing.
The article looks at the influence that Reformed theology has in portions of the church today, and especially its draw on the younger crowd. The author even states that the Calvinist movement may be “larger and more pervasive” than the oft talked about Emergent movement, citing conference and church membership statistics in support of the claim.
I found a couple of things in the article especially interesting. While the author clearly is attempting to represent “Reformed theology” and its influence in the church, the article almost exclusively deals with Calvinistic Baptists. There is a picture of PCA minister Ligon Duncan beside four Baptist ministers, though the article doesn’t mention him at all. R. C. Sproul and J. I. Packer are both mentioned in passing late in the article, as are some long deceased paedobaptists. And there is a sidebar (I don’t know if it was written by the same author)that lists some paedobaptist ministers and ministries, but they are mixed in with a group of Baptist ministers and ministries. On the flip side, the article revolves around the author’s discussions about and conversations with John Piper, Joshua Harris, Al Mohler, and Mark Dever, all of whom are Baptists. The author also spends time discussing the distress that Calvinism is causing among the Arminian contingency in the Southern Baptist Convention. Whether or not the author realizes it (and I’m not sure he does), his real concern in the article is with Baptist culture, not with the whole church. That’s fine, of course, but the article might have been more aptly titled.
Another thing I found interesting was the statement by one Southern Baptist seminarian that he “had never even read Calvin”, eventhough he claims to be a Calvinist. The article goes on to state, “(i)ndeed, the renowned reformer [that is, John Calvin] appears not to be a major figure among the latest generation to claim the theology he made famous.” The author cites George Whitfield as having said he had never read Calvin either.
Now I’ll admit that I haven’t read much Calvin myself. I’ve read some of his Institutes, as well as some from his commentaries on the Scriptures. But it baffles me for someone to claim to be a Calvinist and to not have read him at all. I imagine part of the problem here stems back to C. H. Spurgeon. When Spurgeon talked about the Doctrines of Grace, he spoke of them as being nicknamed “Calvinism”. I can’t say that that means of naming began with him, but inasmuch as he is sort of the patron saint of “Calvinistic Baptists”, I suspect him to be the popularizer of this. I like Spurgeon myself, and have benefited from him immensely, so I don’t intend to just trash him. But he was a Baptist. And besides the issue of baptism, he and Calvin would have disagreed on a number of key doctrines.
When I was first wrestling with the Doctrines of Grace, I had a friend who was raised Dutch Reformed, in a place where “Calvinism” was understood to include more than just the “Five Points”. I, being raised in a Baptistic setting where “Calvinism” only referred to “TULIP”, would use the term in that way, and he would have to adjust his thinking to understand what I was saying. Becoming aware of this, it was the first time I began to think of the term “Calvinism” in a broader way.
A couple of years later, in a conversation with an acquaintance of Michael Scott Horton, I discovered Horton’s distaste for this use of the term. Horton had told this acquaintance that he preferred to refer to so-called Calvinistic Baptists as “Classical Baptists”, referring to the original Baptists who wrote the Baptist Confessions of 1646 and 1689. These Baptists held to predestination as do those who call themselves Calvinistic or Reformed Baptists today.
I have also found it interesting at times to hear some Baptists say they hold to the Canons of Dordt. I can only assume that those who say this haven’t actually read them, or else they would have noticed this in the First Head of Doctrine, Article 17:
We must judge concerning the will of God from His Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents. Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy.
I still use the term “Calvinism” to refer to the Doctrines of Grace for the most part, because that’s the way it’s generally used in my still mostly-Baptist Southern culture. And I appreciate the strong stance that these “Reformed” Baptists take on the Doctrines of Grace, and consider them close allies in the fight against the autonomy of man. But I think I would side with Michael Horton in wishing that they be referred to by a different name. And while they’re deciding what they should call themselves, maybe they can read some Calvin and begin to see the more Biblical approach found in what he actually believed and taught. For that matter, I need to read more of him myself.
Having offered these critiques, I still appreciate the article. Even if these men are all Baptists, I can only regard an increase in the acceptance of the Sovereignty of God to be a good thing.
Friday, September 01, 2006
No More Nickel Creek?
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Ricky Skaggs
Ricky Skaggs and Kentucky Thunder will be in concert here in Greensboro at 8 p.m. on Saturday, September 23. If you want to hear traditional bluegrass done well, Skaggs & company are the group to hear.
Alas, I don’t think I know anyone who is willing to pay the $30 ticket price and is a big enough bluegrass fan to go. Sadly, bluegrass is something I enjoy mostly alone (you may weep tears at this point, if you feel compelled). I haven’t decided if I’m willing to go by myself. So if you want to go to the concert, and don’t have anyone to go with, and aren’t a young woman recovering from a recently-ended longstanding relationship, give me a call.
Oh yeah, the concert is also the day before my 33rd birthday. What’s better than a little birthday bluegrass? Nothing, I say.
Alas, I don’t think I know anyone who is willing to pay the $30 ticket price and is a big enough bluegrass fan to go. Sadly, bluegrass is something I enjoy mostly alone (you may weep tears at this point, if you feel compelled). I haven’t decided if I’m willing to go by myself. So if you want to go to the concert, and don’t have anyone to go with, and aren’t a young woman recovering from a recently-ended longstanding relationship, give me a call.
Oh yeah, the concert is also the day before my 33rd birthday. What’s better than a little birthday bluegrass? Nothing, I say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)